Download Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
RADIATION PROTECTION NO 175
GUIDELINES ON RADIATION PROTECTION
EDUCATION AND TRAINING OF MEDICAL
PROFESSIONALS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
Directorate-General for Energy
Directorate D — Nuclear Safety & Fuel Cycle
Unit D.3 — Radiation Protection
2014
This report was prepared by a consortium led by the European Society of Radiology (ESR),
under contract ENER/10/NUCL/SI2.581148 for the European Commission and represents
the author's views on the subject matter. These views have not been adopted or in any way
approved be the Commission and should not be relied upon as a statement of the
Commission's views. The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the
data included in this report, nor does it accept responsibility for any use made thereof.
This document has been endorsed by:
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be
billed.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014
ISBN 978-92-79-36420-4
doi: 10.2833/19786
© European Union, 2014
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Luxembourg
2
FOREWORD
Luxembourg, February 2014
Since the discovery of radioactivity and x-rays at the end of the 19th century the medical
uses of ionising radiation have increased tremendously, both in patient therapy and medical
diagnosis. This has involved not only a marked increase in the number of procedures, but
also an expansion into different areas of medicine and the creation of new medical
specialties. Nowadays, complex radiation-based tools and techniques are used in most
areas of modern medicine and by specialists who have differing levels of knowledge about
the risks posed to human health by ionising radiation.
The need for education and training in radiation protection of the concerned medical
specialists was realised long ago and different international organisations have issued
recommendations in this respect. European legal requirements were introduced in this area
during the 1980s, when Euratom legislation for radiation protection of patients was first
adopted. This legislation was updated in 1997, when important new requirements – e.g., for
theoretical and practical training, continuing education, the recognition of qualifications and
the introduction of radiation protection in the curricula of medical and dental schools – were
introduced. The most recent revision of the European legislation for radiation protection
(Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom) maintains the education and training requirements of
the previous legislation and provides a further basis for integrating the protection of medical
staff and patients.
In 2000 the European Commission published "Radiation Protection 116: Guidelines on
education and training in radiation protection for medical exposures". The main objective of
the guidance provided on the following pages is to update the publication of 2000. Besides
the obvious benefits of taking into account the scientific, technological and regulatory
developments of the past decade, the present Guidelines bring several additional
advantages: a) the document follows the modern format and terminology of the European
Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning; b) detailed requirements for initial and
continuing training are specified for each of the included professions; and, perhaps most
importantly, c) the document was developed and endorsed by the major European
professional societies in the area, which should provide strong support for its future
implementation in everyday practice.
The publication of this report in the Commission's Radiation Protection series of publications
has been recommended by the Group of Experts established under Article 31 of the Euratom
Treaty.
Ivo Alehno
Head of Radiation Protection Unit
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Article 7 of the Council Directive 97/43/Euratom (the Medical Exposure Directive, MED),
June 30, 1997, on the protection of individuals against the dangers of ionising radiation in
relation to medical exposure, lays down requirements for radiation protection education
and training.
The European Commission realised that certain aspects of this article required some
clarification and orientation for Member States and in 2000 published the ‘Radiation
Protection Report 116: Guidelines on education and training in radiation protection for
medical exposures’. These guidelines contain some specific recommendations for the
application of the Directive and it has served the Member States well.
However, the rapid technological development of the past decade and the constant
growth of ionising radiation use in medicine have necessitated an update of this
document. Furthermore, Radiation Protection Report 116 does not provide learning
outcomes compatible with the European qualifications framework and does not include
requirements and guidance adequate for new specialists using ionising radiation, in
particular those outside imaging departments.
The present guidelines are an update of Radiation Protection Report 116, which take into
account the recent technological advances, the education and training requirements of the
Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive, the European qualifications framework and
includes new specialists using ionising radiation.
Radiation protection education and training starts at the entry level to medical, dental and
other healthcare professional schools. The revised Euratom Basic Safety Standards
Directive states that ‘Member States shall ensure that practitioners and the individuals
involved in the practical aspects of medical radiological procedures have adequate
education, information and theoretical and practical training for the purposes of medical
radiological practices, as well as relevant competence in radiation protection. For this
purpose Member States shall ensure that appropriate curricula are established and shall
recognise the corresponding diplomas, certificates or formal qualifications. Individuals
undergoing relevant training programmes may participate in practical aspects of medical
radiological procedures. Member States shall ensure that continuing education and
training after qualification is provided, and, in the special case of the clinical use of new
techniques, training is provided on these techniques and the relevant radiation protection
requirements. Member States shall encourage the introduction of a course on radiation
protection in the basic curriculum of medical and dental schools’.
Radiation protection courses for medical and dental students should include knowledge
needed by a referring physician, i.e. basic knowledge on patient radiation protection such
as biological effects of radiation, justification of exposures, risk-benefit analysis, typical
doses for each type of examination etc. In addition, knowledge of the advantages and
disadvantages of the use of ionising radiation in medicine, including basic information
about radioactive waste and its safe management, should be part of radiation protection
education and training for medical students. Learning outcomes for referrers are
described in chapter three.
Radiation protection courses in dental schools should cover the same basic aspects as
medical schools, mentioned above, as well as specific training for the safe operation of
diagnostic X-ray equipment. These include the principles of X-ray tube operation,
radiographic imaging, image processing, quality assurance programmes, occupational
dose control and patient dose control etc.
The core radiation protection learning outcomes described in chapter two at European
qualifications framework level three are sufficient for health professionals who are not
5
radiation workers or referrers, e.g. nurses without referring duties. Healthcare
professionals who are classified as radiation workers require further knowledge, skills and
competence and at higher European qualifications framework levels.
These guidelines have been divided into sections according to the roles of the healthcare
professionals in question, and each section includes, in table format, learning outcomes in
terms of knowledge, skills and competence. Recommendations at the required European
qualifications framework level in radiation protection upon entry to the particular
profession and the type of continuous professional development in radiation protection
required for the particular profession are also given.
6
CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Foreword .................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 5
Contents ..................................................................................................................... 7
List of tables ............................................................................................................. 10
1
Introduction........................................................................................................ 11
1.1
Background .............................................................................................................. 11
1.2
MEDRAPET survey ................................................................................................. 13
1.3
Role of organisations ............................................................................................... 13
1.4
Disciplines not covered ............................................................................................ 14
1.5
Healthcare professional schools .............................................................................. 14
1.6
The structure of the guidelines ................................................................................. 14
References ......................................................................................................................... 15
2
Core learning outcomes for radiation protection ................................................ 19
References ......................................................................................................................... 20
3
Learning outcomes for referrers ........................................................................ 23
3.1
Radiation protection professional entry requirements .............................................. 25
3.2
Continuous professional development in radiation protection ................................. 25
References ......................................................................................................................... 26
4
Learning outcomes for physicians directly involved with the use of radiation .... 29
References ......................................................................................................................... 29
4.1
Diagnostic radiologists ............................................................................................. 29
4.1.1
Radiation protection professional entry requirements ........................... 30
4.1.2
Continuous professional development in radiation protection ............... 30
References ........................................................................................................ 30
4.2
Interventional radiologists ........................................................................................ 36
4.2.1
Radiation protection professional entry requirements ........................... 36
4.2.2
Continuous professional development in radiation protection ............... 36
References ........................................................................................................ 36
4.3
Non-radiological specialists employing ionising radiation in interventional techniques
................................................................................................................................. 41
4.3.1
Radiation protection professional entry requirements ........................... 41
4.3.2
Continuous professional development in radiation protection ............... 41
References ........................................................................................................ 42
4.4
Nuclear medicine specialists .................................................................................... 47
4.4.1
Radiation protection professional entry requirements ........................... 48
7
4.4.2
Continuous professional development in radiation protection ............... 48
References ........................................................................................................ 48
4.5
Radiation oncologists ............................................................................................... 52
4.5.1
Radiation protection professional entry requirements ........................... 52
4.5.2
Continuous professional development in radiation protection ............... 52
References ........................................................................................................ 53
5
Learning outcomes for dentists/dental surgeons ............................................... 57
5.1
Radiation protection professional entry requirements .............................................. 57
5.2
Continuous professional development in radiation protection ................................. 58
References ......................................................................................................................... 58
6
Learning outcomes for radiographers ................................................................ 63
6.1
Radiation protection professional entry requirements .............................................. 64
6.2
Continuous professional development in radiation protection ................................. 64
References ......................................................................................................................... 64
7
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for medical physicists/ medical physics
experts............................................................................................................... 73
7.1
Radiation protection professional entry requirements .............................................. 74
7.2
Continuous professional development in radiation protection ................................. 74
References ......................................................................................................................... 74
8
Learning outcomes for nurses and other healthcare workers not directly involved
in the use of ionising radiation ........................................................................... 77
8.1
Radiation protection professional entry requirements .............................................. 77
8.2
Continuous professional development in radiation protection ................................. 77
References ......................................................................................................................... 77
9
Learning outcomes for maintenance engineers and maintenance technicians . 79
9.1
Radiation protection professional entry requirements .............................................. 79
9.2
Continuous professional development in radiation protection ................................. 79
References ......................................................................................................................... 80
10 Accreditation, certification and recognition of medical education and training in
radiation protection ............................................................................................ 83
References ......................................................................................................................... 84
Appendix:
Syllabus and ECTS model for radiation protection education and training
.............................................................................................................. 85
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 85
ECTS for education and training ........................................................................................ 85
ECTS for continuous professional development ................................................................ 86
References ......................................................................................................................... 86
11 Education and training resources ...................................................................... 89
11.1
European Commission Radiation Protection ........................................................ 89
8
11.2
IAEA Radiation Protection of Patients .................................................................. 89
11.3
Image Wisely ........................................................................................................ 89
11.4
Image Gently ........................................................................................................ 90
11.5
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) .............................. 90
11.6
International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) ......................................... 90
11.7
Optimization of Radiation protection for Medical Staff (ORAMED) ...................... 90
11.8
European Medical ALARA Network (EMAN) ........................................................ 90
11.9
European Training and Education in Radiation Protection (EUTERP) Foundation ..
............................................................................................................................. 91
11.10
Heads of the European Radiological protection Competent Authorities (HERCA) ..
............................................................................................................................. 91
11.11
American College of Radiology (ACR) ................................................................. 91
11.12
Australian Department of Health of Western Australia ......................................... 91
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ 93
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. 97
ANNEX: ICRP 113 tables 3.1 and 3.2 ...................................................................... 98
9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1
Core radiation protection topics
19
Table 2.2
Core learning outcomes in radiation protection for the healthcare
professions
22
Table 3.1
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for referrers
28
Table 4.1.1
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for diagnostic radiologists
32
Table 4.2.1
Additional learning outcomes in radiation protection for interventional
radiologists
38
Table 4.3.1
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for non-radiological
specialists employing high-dose interventional techniques
43
Table 4.3.2
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for non-radiological
specialists employing low-level interventional techniques
45
Table 4.4.1
Additional learning outcomes in radiation protection for nuclear
medicine specialists
49
Table 4.5.1
Additional learning outcomes in radiation protection for radiation
oncologists
54
Table 5.1
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for dentist/dental surgeons
59
Table 6.1
Core learning outcomes in radiation protection for radiographers
66
Table 6.1.1
Additional learning outcomes in radiation protection for radiology
radiographers
68
Table 6.1.2
Additional learning outcomes in radiation protection for nuclear
medicine technologists
69
Table 6.1.3
Additional learning outcomes in radiation protection for radiotherapy
technologists
71
Table 7.1
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for medical
physicists/medical physics experts
76
Table 8.1
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for nurses and other
healthcare workers
78
Table 9.1
Additional learning outcomes in radiation protection for maintenance
engineers and maintenance technicians
81
Table A1
Recommended syllabus and ECTS for radiation protection education
and training for radiographers
87
Table A 3.1
ICRP 113 Table 3.1. Recommended radiological protection training
requirements for different categories of physicians and dentists.
98
Table A 3.2
ICRP 113 Table 3.2. Recommended radiological protection training
requirements for categories of healthcare professionals other than
physicians or dentists.
99
10
Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
Our knowledge of the effects of ionising radiation on the human body, allows us to
comprehend the mechanisms via which it can be rendered harmful, as well as the potential
for ionising radiation as a tool for diagnosis and treatment.
It is very important to be aware, as professionals, of the possible dangers from exposure to
ionising radiation. This awareness constitutes a key factor for the equitable exploitation of the
possibilities ionising radiation has to offer for diagnosis and treatment versus its potential for
harm.
Underestimating the health risks from exposure to ionising radiation could lead to
unjustifiable patient and/or physician exposure, and to a concomitant increase in the overall
population dose.
Overestimating the radiation risks, on the other hand, may lead the professional towards
disproportionate concerns, and discourage patients from having necessary diagnostic or
therapeutic radiological procedures.
Therefore, an assessment of the health risks from exposure to ionising radiation as opposed
to the benefits involved should be carefully conducted in order to ensure appropriate referral
(justification).
Exposure to ionising radiation should be minimised as much as possible whilst achieving the
required diagnostic or therapeutic outcome (optimisation).
Education and training in general, and specifically training in the field of radiation protection,
are widely recognised as key components of justification and optimisation programmes. An
appropriate balance between education and training should be ensured, and hands-on
training courses with a problem-solving approach should be organised and promoted. The
faculty must have profound knowledge in medical radiation protection and, specifically, in the
practical aspects of how to train a subject.
International and European organisations such as the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP) [1, 2, 3, 5], International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) [6, 7,
8], World Health Organisation (WHO) [9, 10, 11, 12], and the European Commission (EC)
[13, 14], recognise the importance of education and training in reducing patient and staff
doses while maintaining the necessary level of quality for diagnostic and therapeutic
procedures.
1.1 Background
Article 7 of the Council Directive 97/43/Euratom (the Medical Exposure Directive-MED) on
the protection of individuals against the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical
exposure (MED), lays down requirements for radiation protection education and training [15].
The EC realised that certain aspects of this Article required some clarification and orientation
for Member States (MS) and in 2000 published the ‘Radiation Protection Report 116:
Guidelines on education and training in radiation protection for medical exposures (RP116)’
[14]. These guidelines contain some specific recommendations for the application of the
directive and it has served the MS well.
However, the rapid technological development of the past decade and the continuous growth
of ionising radiation use in medicine have necessitated an update of these guidelines [16,
17]. Furthermore, RP116 does not provide learning outcomes compatible with the European
11
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
Qualifications Framework (EQF) and does not provide adequate coverage of requirements
and guidance for new specialists using ionising radiation, in particular those outside imaging
departments.
Today, medical procedures constitute by far the most significant artificial source of radiation
exposure to the general population [18]. Since training in radiation protection is widely
recognised as one of the basic components of optimisation programmes for medical
exposure, it is necessary to establish a high standard of education and training, harmonised
at European Union (EU) level.
The revised Euratom BSS Directive [19] states that ‘Member States shall ensure that
practitioners and the individuals involved in the practical aspects of medical radiological
procedures have adequate education, information and theoretical and practical training for
the purposes of medical radiological practices, as well as relevant competence in radiation
protection. For this purpose Member States shall ensure that appropriate curricula are
established and shall recognise the corresponding diplomas, certificates or formal
qualifications. Individuals undergoing relevant training programmes may participate in
practical aspects of medical radiological procedures. Member States shall ensure that
continuing education and training after qualification is provided, and, in the special case of
the clinical use of new techniques, training is provided on these techniques and the relevant
radiation protection requirements. Member States shall encourage the introduction of a
course on radiation protection in the basic curriculum of medical and dental schools’.
Therefore, in 2010, the EC initiated a project to study the implementation of the MED
requirements in radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
member states and to develop European Guidance containing appropriate recommendations
for harmonisation at the EU level [20].
This project, with the title, Study on the Implementation of the Medical Exposures Directive's
Requirements on Radiation Protection Training of Medical Professionals in the EU
(MEDRAPET), was awarded to a consortium consisting of the following organisations:
European Society of Radiology (ESR), Austria, (Coordinator)
European Federation of Radiographer Societies (EFRS), the Netherlands
European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics (EFOMP), United Kingdom
European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ESTRO), Belgium
European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), Austria
Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE), Austria.
The main objectives of this project were:
1.
To carry out an EU-wide study on radiation protection education and training of medical
professionals in the MS;
2.
To organise a European Workshop on radiation protection education and training of
medical professionals in the MS;
3.
To develop European guidelines on radiation protection education and training of
medical professionals.
This report concentrates on the third objective while taking into account the outcomes of the
first two and the requirements of the Euratom BSS [19].
12
Introduction
1.2 MEDRAPET survey
The survey was aimed at the main stakeholders within the EU and associated countries, with
responsibility for ensuring the application of the MED, particularly in relation to articles 7 and
9 [15].
A response rate of 57% from the Radiation Protection Authorities (RPA) is considered
extremely positive. The survey revealed that the regulatory framework of radiation protection
education and training is well developed at the national level. Its implementation, however, is
considered to be poor.
The responses from the Professional Societies (PS) showed that the fundamental
understanding of the complexities of radiation protection and the concomitant knowledge
base vary between different specialist groups.
All PS claim to have some kind of radiation protection education and training. The majority of
this education and training is carried out at undergraduate level or during residency, with a
lower percentage at the continuous professional development (CPD) level.
The results from the Educational Institutes (EI) suggest a need to increase communication
between RPA, PS and EI, taking into account that EI should train healthcare professionals
according to the professional profile defined by PS and the relevant EC Directives.
An overview of the results from the survey of key stakeholders clearly shows an urgent need
to build a bridge between RPA, PS and EI, in order to achieve the goals of the MED and the
Euratom BSS.
Creating legislation and providing guidelines at EU or national level is, by itself, not enough
to create a radiation protection safety culture among healthcare professionals.
Radiation protection education and training are far from being harmonised, and in some
instances have not been implemented.
1.3 Role of organisations
The main objective of organisations representing healthcare professionals is to maintain and
improve the status of their profession. Therefore, they provide recommendations to their
members on the following topics, not necessarily in the order listed:

Education and training

Level of knowledge, skills and competence (KSC)

Continuous professional development (CPD)

Ethical and professional code of practice
It is obvious to the healthcare professions, directly or indirectly involved with the use of
ionising radiation, that radiation protection should form a part of the above mentioned topics,
at the appropriate level for each profession.
PS exist at the regional, national and international level. More often than not, the regional
and international organisations are networks of national organisations and provide similar
recommendations that aim at harmonised implementation at the regional or international
level.
European organisations which represent healthcare professionals are of paramount
importance in the harmonisation of their professions, at least within Europe. They are striving
to ensure the same level of KSC.
13
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
Input from the relevant European organisations involved in the MEDRAPET project was very
important for the development of these guidelines and will also be crucial for their
dissemination and use.
1.4 Disciplines not covered
The current version of these guidelines focuses on the disciplines mainly found in
hospital/clinical environments. For the disciplines outside these environments the core
education and training learning outcomes are regarded as sufficient (see chapter two).
The learning outcomes of radiation protection experts (RPE) working in the health-care
environment have been developed by the European Network on Education and Training in
Radiation Protection (ENETRAP) programme and are, therefore, not included in these
guidelines [21].
1.5 Healthcare professional schools
Radiation protection education and training starts at the entry level to the medical, dental and
other healthcare professional schools. The Euratom BSS Directive [19] states that ‘Member
States shall encourage the introduction of a course on radiation protection in the basic
curriculum of medical and dental schools’. Radiation protection courses should, however,
have a different orientation and content for medical and dental students [13].
Radiation protection courses for medical students should include knowledge needed by a
referring physician, i.e. basic knowledge on patient radiation protection such as biological
effects of radiation, justification of exposures, procedure optimisation, risk-benefit analysis,
typical doses for each type of examination, etc. In addition, knowledge of the advantages and
disadvantages of the use of ionising radiation in medicine, including basic information about
radioactive waste and its safe management, should be part of radiation protection education
and training for medical students. Learning outcomes for referrers are described in chapter
three.
Radiation protection courses in dental schools should cover the same basic aspects as
medical schools, mentioned above, as well as specific training for the safe operation of
diagnostic X-ray equipment. These include the principles of X-ray tube operation,
radiographic imaging, image processing, quality assurance (QA) programmes, occupational
dose control and patient dose control etc. [13].
The core radiation protection learning outcomes, described in chapter two, at EQF level three
are sufficient for health professionals who are not radiation workers or referrers, e.g. nurses
without referring duties. Healthcare professionals who are classified as radiation workers
require further KSC and higher EQF levels.
1.6 The structure of the guidelines
According to the EU recommendations on the establishment of the EQF for Lifelong Learning
(LLL) professional qualifications have been classified into eight levels [22, 23]. Each of the
eight levels is defined by a set of descriptors indicating the learning outcomes relevant to the
qualifications at that level in terms of KSC. It should be understood that not all subject areas
14
Introduction
included in the entry qualifications for a particular profession would be at the same level as
the entry qualifications for the profession as a whole. Each profession consists of major and
minor subject areas, where the major subject areas are considered to be core areas to the
profession and their learning outcomes must be at the general level of the profession. Other
subject areas that are auxiliary, or supporting, are at lower levels. An example of such a
subject area is radiation protection, for which the learning outcomes level depends very
much on the level of involvement of a particular health profession with ionising radiation. For
example, while entry into the profession as a medical doctor requires at least KSC level 7 for
the medical subject areas, radiation protection KSC level 5 may be sufficient if the particular
medical doctor acts as referrer for the use of ionising radiation.
Education and training guidelines and KSC tables should be updated regularly to reflect
technological and other advances in the field of medical radiation protection.
These guidelines have been divided into sections according to the healthcare profession in
question, and each section includes KSC and CPD at the required level.
Each chapter includes two subsections, one on radiation protection level requirements upon
entry to the particular profession and the other on the type of CPD in radiation protection for
the profession. The first subsection specifies the KSC and the required EQF level in radiation
protection upon entry to the particular profession and the second subsection specifies the
type of CPD in radiation protection required for the particular profession, i.e. whether the
radiation protection CPD is to acquire more KSC or to bring the entry KSC to a higher EQF
level.
The structure of these guidelines will facilitate future amendments by various professions and
the inclusion of new professions (see section 1.4).
These guidelines do not include details on the number of hours for radiation protection
education and training. In accordance with the European recommendations for LLL [22], only
learning outcomes are specified. It is up to the educational establishments to decide on the
time required to achieve these learning outcomes for the particular profession at the
corresponding level of LLL. The levels for radiation protection education and training required
are different for the different professions and the KSC of each individual profession is
currently at a different level. Guidance on the number of hours for radiation protection
education and training with respect to diagnostic and interventional radiology (IR) can be
found in ICRP publication 113 (tables 3.1 and 3.2, which are reproduced, with the permission
of ICRP, in the annex) [5].
It is also important to note that healthcare professionals involved with multimodality imaging
studies acquired using multimodality systems, such as positron emission tomography
(PET)/computed tomography (CT) and single photon emission computed tomography
(SPECT) /CT [24, 25 and 26] require the competence and certification in radiation protection
for both diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine (NM) as specified in sections 4.1 and 4.4
respectively.
References
[1] ICRP, 2001. Radiation and your patient - A Guide for Medical Practitioners. ICRP
Supporting Guidance 2. Ann. ICRP 31 (4).
[2] ICRP, 2004. Managing Patient Dose in Digital Radiology. ICRP Publication 93. Ann.
ICRP 34 (1).
[3] ICRP, 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37 (2-4).
15
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
[4] ICRP, 2007. Radiological Protection in Medicine. ICRP Publication 105. Ann. ICRP 37
(6).
[5] ICRP, 2009. Education and Training in Radiological Protection for Diagnostic and
Interventional Procedures. ICRP Publication 113. Ann. ICRP 39 (5).
[6] IAEA, 1996. International Basic Safety Standards for protection against Ionizing
Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources. Safety Series No. 115, Vienna.
[7] IAEA, 2002. Training Course Series No. 18: Postgraduate Educational Course in
Radiation Protection and the Safety of Radiation Sources, Standard Syllabus. IAEA,
Vienna.
[8] IAEA, 2010. Training Course Series No. 42: Radiation Biology: A Handbook for
Teachers and Students. IAEA, Vienna.
[9] WHO, 2000. Efficacy and radiation safety in interventional radiology. WHO, Geneva.
[10] WHO, 2001. Quality Assurance Workbook for Radiographers and Radiological
Technologists. WHO, Geneva.
[11] WHO, 2004. Basics of Radiation Protection for Everyday Use How to Achieve ALARA:
Working Tips and Guidelines. WHO, Geneva.
[12] The Lancet, “Health Professionals for the new century: transforming education to
strengthen health systems in an interdependent world”, The Lancet and Education of
Health Professionals for the 21st Century Commission, November 29, 2010.
[13] EC, 2000, RP 116. Guidelines on Education and Training in Radiation Protection for
Medical
Exposures.
Directorate-General
Environment,
Luxembourg
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/doc/publication/116.pdf
(Last
th
time accessed was on the 14 of December 2012).
[14] EC, 2000, RP 119. Multimedia and Audio-visual Radiation Protection Training in
Interventional
Radiology.
Directorate-General
Environment,
Luxembourg
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/publications_en.htm (Last time
accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[15] Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals
against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure, and repealing
Directive 84/466/Euratom, Official Journal L-180 of 09.07.1997, p 22, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31997L0043:EN:HTML (Last time
accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[16] EC, 2010. Radiation Criteria for Acceptability of Medical Radiological Equipment used in
Diagnostic Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy: Invitation to tender No.
ENER/D4/356-2010, Luxembourg, http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:1371692010:TEXT:EN:HTML (Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[17] EC, 2012, RP162. Criteria for Acceptability of Medical Radiological Equipment used in
Diagnostic Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy. Directorate-General Energy,
Luxembourg,
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/doc/publication/rp162web.pdf,
(Last time accessed was on the 17th of December 2012).
[18] UNSCEAR, “Sources and Effects of ionizing radiation: UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the
General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes”, Vol. 1, United Nations, New York, 2010.
[19] Council of the European Union. (2013). Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom laying down
basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to
ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom,
96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. Official Journal L-13 of
17.01.2014.
16
Introduction
[20] Invitation to tender No. ENER/D4/212-2010 concerning “Study on the Implementation of
the Medical Exposures Directive's Requirements on Radiation Protection Training of
Medical Professionals in the European Union”,
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy/tenders/doc/2010/s092_137170_invitation.pdf (Last time
accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[21] ENETRAP, 2007. European Network on Education and Training in Radiological
Protection Coordination Action, WD.06 Table of content of the pilot session in RP
training.
Euratom
Research
and
Training
on
Nuclear
Energy.
http://www.sckcen.be/enetrap/aspx/viewer.aspx?dwnld=WD06WP7version2.pdf&widget
=PUBDOC&i=766607D6-E526-40AC-AF93-001354743AD7 (Last time accessed was on
the 17th of December 2012).
[22] European Parliament and Council (2008) Recommendation 2008/C 111/01 on the
establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning. Official
Journal of the European Union 6.5.2008.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=oj:c:2008:111:0001:0007:en:pdf
(Last time accessed was on the 17th of December 2012).
[23] EC, 2008. Explaining the European Qualification’s Framework for Lifelong Learning.
Office for the official publications of the European Union, Luxembourg.
[24] EANM-ESR, 2007. White paper of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine
(EANM) and the European Society of Radiology (ESR) on Multimodality Imaging. Eur J
Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 34:1147-1151.
[25] EANM-ESR, 2011. Multimodality Imaging Training Curriculum
Recommendations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 38:976-978.
–
General
[26] EANM-ESR, 2011. Multimodality Imaging Training Curriculum – Parts II and III. Eur J
Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 39:557-562.
17
Core learning outcomes for radiation protection
2 CORE LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR RADIATION
PROTECTION
All healthcare professionals who work with ionising radiation, those who refer patients for
diagnostic or therapeutic procedures, as well as those working within areas where ionising
radiation is used, must acquire essential core KSC in radiation protection during the entry
level of education and training in their respective schools (see section 1.5).
A review of the recommendations of international and European organisations [1, 2, 3, 4, 5],
the wider literature [6, 7, 8, 9, 10], as well as the conclusions of the survey undertaken as
part of the MEDRAPET Project (see section 1.2), suggest that the topics to be covered at
this entry level should be those listed in Table 2.1. The corresponding KSC are listed in
Table 2.2 and these should be at least EQF level 5.
Upon entering their respective professions, healthcare professionals may be required to have
an enhanced KSC level for these topics, as well as additional and specific KSC for their
profession (see section 1.6). These are outlined in the following chapters for the healthcare
professions currently being considered. For those professions not yet specifically considered
in these guidelines, the requirements should at least include the core learning outcomes
presented in this section at the EQF level of the particular profession (see section 1.4).
Table 2.1:
Core radiation protection topics
No. Topic
1
Atomic structure, X-ray production and interaction of radiation
2
Nuclear structure and radioactivity
3
Radiological quantities and units
4
Physical characteristics of X-ray systems
5
Fundamentals of radiation detection
6
Fundamentals of radiobiology, biological effects of radiation
7
Risks of cancer and hereditary disease and effective dose
8
Risks of deterministic effects
9
General principles of radiation protection
10
Operational radiation protection
11
Particular patient radiation protection aspects
12
Particular staff radiation protection aspects
13
Typical doses from diagnostic procedures
14
Risks from foetal exposure to ionising radiation
15
Quality control and quality assurance in radiation protection
16
National regulations and international standards
17
Dose management of pregnant patients
18
Dose management of pregnant staff
19
The process of justification of imaging examinations
20
Management of accidents/unintentional exposures
All healthcare professionals who refer patients for diagnostic procedures, as well as those
working within areas where ionising radiation is used, must take into consideration that
specific population groups need special precautions to protect them from radiation.
19
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
Screening programmes involve asymptomatic persons and a prerequisite for a successful
screening programme is that the images contain sufficient diagnostic information to be able
to detect a given clinical condition, often malignancies, using as low a radiation dose as is
reasonably achievable. This quality demand applies to every single screening image. An
example of a screening programme is breast cancer screening [11]. Quality Control (QC)
therefore must ascertain that the equipment performs at a consistently high quality level and
that the exposure protocols used are optimised for the purpose.
Furthermore, diagnostic radiological examinations carry higher risk per unit of radiation dose
for the development of cancer in unborn children, infants and children compared to adults [1,
12 and 13]. The higher risk is partly explained by the longer life expectancy in children for
any harmful effect of radiation to manifest and the fact that developing organs and tissues
are more sensitive to the effects of radiation. Therefore, it is particularly important that all
radiological examinations performed on pregnant patients, young children and adolescents
are justified and optimised with regard to radiation protection.
Healthcare professionals involved in such procedures, need to have specific KSCs for such
procedures in order to assure adequate protection of asymptomatic persons participating in
screening programmes, pregnant women, infants and children from routine diagnostic and
interventional procedures utilising ionising radiation. The learning outcomes specified in the
following chapters include the necessary KSC for these special situations.
References
[1]
ICRP, 2009. Education and Training in Radiological Protection for Diagnostic and
Interventional Procedures. ICRP Publication 113. Ann. ICRP 39 (5).
[2]
IAEA, 2002. Training Course Series No. 18: Postgraduate Educational Course in
Radiation Protection and the Safety of Radiation Sources, Standard Syllabus, IAEA,
Vienna.
[3]
IAEA, 2010. Training Course Series No. 42: Radiation Biology: A Handbook for
Teachers and Students. IAEA, Vienna.
[4]
WHO, 2004. Basics of Radiation Protection for Everyday Use How to Achieve ALARA:
Working Tips and Guidelines. WHO, Geneva.
[5]
EC, 2000, RP 116. Guidelines on Education and Training in Radiation Protection for
Medical
Exposures.
Directorate-General
Environment,
Luxembourg
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/doc/publication/116.pdf
(Last
time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[6]
The Lancet, “Health Professionals for the new century: transforming education to
strengthen health systems in an interdependent world”, The Lancet and Education of
Health Professionals for the 21st Century Commission, November 29, 2010.
[7]
Fernandez Soto J. M., Vano E. and Guibelalde E., “Spanish Experience in Education
and Training in Radiation Protection in Medicine”, Radiation Protection Dosimetry
(2011), Vol. 147 No. 1-2, pp. 338-342.
[8]
Ohno K. and Kaori T., “Effective Education in Radiation Safety for Nurses”, Radiation
Protection Dosimetry (2011), Vol. 147, No.1 -2, pp. 343-345.
[9]
Akimoto T., Caruana C. Shimosegawa J., M., “A qualitative comparative survey First
Cycle radiography programmes in Europe and Japan”, Radiography (2009), 15, pp.
333-340.
20
Core learning outcomes for radiation protection
[10] Kourdioukova E. V., Valcke M., Derese A., Verstraete K. L., “Analysis of radiology
education in undergraduate medical doctors”, European Journal of Radiology, 78
92011) pp. 309-318.
[11] EC, 2006. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and
diagnosis — Fourth Edition. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R,
von Karsa L, Puthaar E (eds), Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities, Luxembourg.
[12] IAEA, 2012. Safety Report Series No. 71, “Radiation Protection in Paediatric
Radiology”, IAEA, Vienna, 2012.
[13] NRCNA, 2006, “Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation; BEIR VII
phase 2, Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing
Radiation”,
National
Academies
Press,
Washington,
DC
(2006),
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030909156X (last accessed on the 24th of
May 2013).
21
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Table 2.2:
Core learning outcomes in radiation protection for the healthcare professions
Core radiation protection
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
K1. Describe and explain atomic structure
K2. Describe the nuclear structure and explain the
laws of radioactive decay
K3. List and explain the fundamental radiological
quantities and units
K4. Describe the physical characteristics of X-ray
systems
K5. Explain the fundamentals of radiation detection
K6. Explain the fundamentals of radiobiology and the
biological effects of radiation
K7. Explain the relation between effective dose and
the risk of cancer and hereditary diseases
K8. Explain the differences between deterministic and
stochastic effects and their respective dose
ranges
K9. Describe the general principles of radiation
protection
K10. Explain the ‘linear no-threshold’ (LNT) hypothesis
K11. List and explain radiation protection aspects with
respect to patients
K12. List and explain radiation protection aspects with
respect to staff
K13. List typical doses from diagnostic procedures
K14. Explain the risks to the foetus from exposure to
ionising radiation
K15. Understand the principles of QC and QA with
respect to radiation protection
K16. List the regulations and international standards
relevant to radiation protection in the healthcare
setting
K17. Understand the concepts of justification and
optimisation
K18. Explain accidental/unintended exposures
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
S1. Apply radiation protection measures in daily
practice
S2. Communicate the most important factors that
influence staff doses
S3. Compare reported doses from medical
procedures to doses from natural sources
S4. Interpret radiation risks in the context of other
risks in daily life
S5. Identify the legal radiation protection
obligations in daily practice
22
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C1. Implement the national radiation protection
regulatory requirements in daily practice
Learning outcomes for referrers
3 LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR REFERRERS
Medical imaging involving the use of ionising radiation (X-rays or radionuclides) is a major
and increasing source of radiation exposure worldwide. Before CT was introduced in the
1970s, the most common imaging examination was radiography, which usually involved a
rather small radiation dose for the patient. Currently, CT is the preferred imaging modality
and the largest contributor to radiation dose from medical exposure. CT scans may lead to
organ doses that can be several hundred times higher than doses typically delivered during
radiography. Many patients undergo multiple CT examinations and some also undergo
multiple NM examinations [1,2].
The basic radiation protection principles for medical exposure, as outlined by the ICRP, are
the justification of exposure and optimisation of radiation protection [3]. They have been
incorporated into the Euratom legislation [4]. Justification requires that the potential benefit
for the patient outweighs the associated radiation risk. While referrers are typically skilled at
estimating the benefit of a radiological procedure for an individual patient, the radiation risk
itself has not received the attention it deserves. Although the radiation protection community
uses the word justification, the term ‘imaging appropriateness’ is more common among
radiologists who use ‘appropriateness criteria’ developed by professional societies such as
the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) or the American College of Radiology (ACR) [5,6].
The referrer and practitioner should be involved, as specified by the MS, in the justification
process at the appropriate level. Optimisation does not fall within the domain of referrers;
however, referrers are responsible for providing the imaging facility with clinical information
pertaining to the patient, in order to help the practitioner justify or assess the appropriateness
of the examination and tailor the examination to the patient.
According to the Euratom BSS, medical exposure should show a sufficient net benefit,
weighing the total potential diagnostic or therapeutic benefits it produces, including the direct
health benefits to an individual and the benefits to society, against the individual harm that
the exposure might cause, taking into account the efficacy, benefits and risks of available
alternative techniques having the same objective but involving no or less exposure to ionising
radiation.
In particular, the following requirements should be met:
(a)
new types of practices involving medical exposure are justified in advance before
being generally adopted;
(b)
all individual medical exposures are justified in advance taking into account the
specific objectives of the exposure and the characteristics of the individual involved;
(c)
if a type of practice involving medical exposure is not justified in general, a specific
individual exposure of this type can be justified, where appropriate, in special
circumstances, to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and documented;
(d)
the referrer and the practitioner, as specified by Member States, seek, where
practicable, to obtain previous diagnostic information or medical records relevant to
the planned exposure and consider these data to avoid unnecessary exposure;
(e)
medical exposure for medical or biomedical research are examined by an ethics
committee, set up in accordance with national procedures and/or by the competent
authority;
(f)
specific justification for medical radiological procedures to be performed as part of a
health screening programme are carried out by the competent authority in conjunction
with appropriate medical scientific societies or relevant bodies;
23
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
(g)
the exposure of carers and comforters show a sufficient net benefit, taking into
account the direct health benefits to a patient, the possible benefits to the carer/
comforter and the detriment that the exposure might cause;
(h)
any medical radiological procedure on an asymptomatic individual, to be performed for
the early detection of disease, is part of a health screening programme, or requires
specific documented justification for that individual by the practitioner, in consultation
with the referrer, following guidelines from relevant medical scientific societies and the
competent authority. Special attention shall be given to the provision of information to
the individual subject to medical exposure.
The implementation of the justification principle has been approached through the
establishment of ‘appropriateness criteria’ or ‘referral guidelines’ as provided by professional
bodies [5, 6, 7]. The EC issued in 2000, and updated in 2003, a booklet with referral
guidelines for imaging, for use by health professionals referring patients for medical imaging.
In 2010 this outdated document was removed from the EUROPA website upon request from
the owner of the intellectual property rights. There has been talk of updating these
guidelines. Nevertheless, updated guidelines from professional societies are available [5, 6,
7]. These publications constitute decision support tools to guide referring medical
practitioners in the selection of the optimal imaging procedure for certain diagnostic
questions. Where there is an alternative that does not use ionising radiation, but yields
results of similar clinical value, the guidelines advises against radiological procedures with
ionising radiation. Publications such as those mentioned above provide specific directions to
help practitioners properly justify procedures.
A number of studies have been published indicating that 20% to 40% of CT scans could be
avoided if clinical decision guidelines were followed; some studies suggest even higher
numbers of avoidable examinations [1]. Furthermore, several studies have revealed a very
low awareness of the referral guidelines [9, 10, 11, 12].
The IAEA has provided information for referrers through its website [13]. It includes a
framework for justification, different levels at which justification is applied, responsibilities of
referrers, practice of justification, reasons for over-investigation and the knowledge required
for proper justification of a radiological procedure. It also includes information from the RCR
imaging referral guidelines (iRefer) and provides the following guidance [13,14]:
When is an investigation useful and what are the reasons that cause unnecessary use of
radiation?
According to the guidelines that were published by the EC in 2000, and revised in 2003 and
the guidelines published by the RCR [14], a useful investigation is one in which the result,
either positive or negative, will alter a patient’s management or add confidence to the
referrer’s diagnosis. According to these guidelines, there are some reasons that lead to
wasteful use of radiation. With an emphasis on avoiding unjustified irradiation of patients,
these guidelines have provided a check list for physicians referring patients for diagnostic
radiological procedures:
HAS IT BEEN DONE ALREADY? It is important to avoid repeating investigations which have
already been performed relatively recently. Sometimes it is not possible to accurately track
the procedure history of patients. Furthermore, patients may not be able to inform the
practitioner that they had a similar procedure recently. It is important to try to retrieve
previous patient procedures and reports, or at least procedure history when possible. Digital
data stored in electronic databases may help with this.
To help avoid repeating investigations, it is advisable to establish a tracking system for
radiological examinations (especially CT, interventional procedures and NM) and patient
dose. The IAEA has taken steps towards this by setting up the “IAEA SmartCard/SmartRadTrack” project [15]. Countries should consider including necessary provisions
in their national requirements for patient radiation exposure tracking.
24
Learning outcomes for referrers
DO I NEED IT? Performing investigations that are unlikely to produce useful results should
be avoided, i.e. procedures should be requested only if they will change patients’
management. It is important for the practitioner to be sure that the finding that the
investigation yields is relevant to the case under investigation.
DO I NEED IT NOW? Investigating too quickly should be avoided. The referrer should allow
enough time to pass so that the patient’s symptoms or the impact from managing the
symptoms is sufficiently evident.
IS THIS THE BEST EXAMINATION? Doing the examination without first taking into
consideration safety, resource utilisation or diagnostic outcome should be avoided.
Discussion with a practitioner may help referrers decide on the proper modality and
technique.
HAVE I EXPLAINED THE PROBLEM? Failure to provide appropriate clinical information and
address questions that the imaging investigation should answer should be avoided. Failures
here may lead to the wrong technique being used (e.g. the omission of an essential view).
ARE TOO MANY INVESTIGATIONS BEING PERFORMED? Over-investigating should be
avoided. Some physicians tend to rely on investigations more than others. Some patients
take comfort in being investigated.
The referrer should be aware of procedures that expose patients to high radiation doses and
exercise extra caution in these instances. This however, does not imply that low-dose
procedures can be ordered without proper justification. A quantitative knowledge of doses
from various procedures is useful for the referrer. A review of radiation doses, their meaning
and their role in risk assessment is available [16, 17, 18]. Some NM procedures are also
responsible for high radiation doses to patients and information on doses is available [19].
Information on radiation exposure in pregnancy is also available [20].
Table 3.1 provides learning outcomes for the referrers. The knowledge required covers
principles of justification; different levels at which the justification principle is applied;
requirements for referrers as specified in the Euratom BSS, including information for patients
and specific knowledge required to deal with radiation exposure in pregnancy, women of
childbearing age, breastfeeding mothers and children. The corresponding information for
skills and competence is provided in the table.
3.1 Radiation protection professional entry requirements
Radiation protection is a minor subject for Referrers and should be at level 5 of the EQF
upon their entry to the profession1.
3.2 Continuous professional development in radiation
protection
Referrers should update their radiation protection KSC at regular intervals in order to
maintain their radiation protection competence and update their knowledge on new
diagnostic procedures and their justification.
It is important to note here that a large number of Referrers may be General Practitioners
(GPs)/Family Doctors that practice individually or in small health centres. They may not have
daily contact with diagnostic facilities, unlike specialists in major hospitals, or the opportunity
1
The reader is referred to section 1.6 for more information.
25
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
to participate in in-house CPD activities. Therefore they should seek to make arrangements
with centres that provide CPD activities in radiation protection as appropriate, in the best
interests of patient care.
References
[1]
Rehani M., Frush D. Tracking radiation exposure of patients. Lancet 2010; 376(9743):
754-5.
[2]
Sodickson A, Baeyens PF, Andriole KP, et al. Cumulative radiation exposure, and
associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radiology 2009; 251(1):
175-84.
[3]
ICRP, 2007. Recommendations of the ICRP, Publication 103, Pergamon Press, Oxford
(2007).
[4]
Council of the European Union. (2013). Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom laying down
basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to
ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom,
96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. Official Journal L-13 of
17.01.2014.
[5]
Royal College of Radiologists, 2012. iRefer Making the best use of clinical radiology,
7th edition. London, UK: Royal College of Radiologists.
[6]
American
College
of
Radiology.
ACR
Appropriateness
Criteria®.
http://www.acr.org/secondarymainmenucategories/quality_safety/app_criteria.aspx
(Last accessed on the 26thJanuary 2012).
[7]
Diagnostic imaging pathways. A Clinical Decision Support Tool and Educational
Resource for Diagnostic Imaging. Government of Western Australia, Department of
Health.
http://www.imagingpathways.health.wa.gov.au/includes/index.html
(Last
accessed on the 26thJanuary 2012).
[8]
Brenner, J.D., Doll, R., Goodhead, D.T., Hall, E.J., et al., Cancer risks attributable to
low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know. P Natl Acad Sci USA
100(24) (2003) 13761-13766.
[9]
Kumar S, Mankad K, Bhartia B. Awareness of making the best use of a Department of
Clinical Radiology amongst physicians in Leeds Teaching Hospitals, UK. BJR 2007;
80(950): 140.
[10] Hirschl DA, Ruzal-Shapiro C, Taragin BH. Online Survey of Radiologic Ordering
Practices by Pediatric Trainees. J Am CollRadiol 2010; 7: 360-3.
[11] Bautista AB, Burgos A, Nickel BJ, Yoon JL, Tilara AA, Amorosa JK. Do Clinicians Use
the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria in the Management of
Their Patients? AJR 2009; 192: 1581-5.
[12] Chiunda AB, Tan-Lucien H. Mohammed. Knowledge of ACR Thoracic Imaging
Appropriateness Criteria among Trainees: One Institution’s Experience. Acad Radiol
2012 Feb 18. [Epub ahead of print].
[13] Radiation Protection of Patients. Information for referring medical practitioners.
https://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/InformationFor/HealthProfessionals/6_Other
ClinicalSpecialities/referring-medical-practitioners/index.htm (Last time accessed was
on the 14th of December 2012).
26
Learning outcomes for referrers
[14] The Royal College of Radiologists (RCR's) imaging referral guidelines, iRefer,
http://www.rcr.ac.uk/content.aspx?PageID=995 (Last time accessed on 17thof June
2012.
[15] IAEA Smart Card protect: https://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/News/smart-cardproject.htm (Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[16] Radiation Protection of Patients website of the IAEA. Computed tomography:
https://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/InformationFor/Patients/patient-informationcomputed-tomography/index.htm (Last time accessed was on the 14th of December
2012).
[17] Radiation Protection of Patients website of the IAEA. Information for public
https://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/InformationFor/Patients/informationpublic/index.htm (Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[18] Radiation Protection of Patients website of the IAEA. Interventional cardiology:
https://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/InformationFor/HealthProfessionals/5_Interv
entionalCardiology/index.htm#IntCardFAQ11 (Last time accessed was on the 14th of
December 2012).
[19] Radiation Protection of Patients website of the IAEA. Nuclear Medicine:
https://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/InformationFor/HealthProfessionals/3_Nucle
arMedicine/DiagnosticNuclearMedicine/DiagnosticNuclearMedicine-Generalissues.htm
(Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[20] Radiation Protection of Patients website of the IAEA. Radiation exposure in pregnancy:
https://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/SpecialGroups/1_PregnantWomen/index.ht
m (Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
27
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Patient safety/risk management
Table 3.1:
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for referrers
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
K1. Explain the principle of justification and its
application at different levels including for
asymptomatic individuals and on a case by case
basis
K2. List the diagnostic and therapeutic practices that
are formally approved through legislative or
administrative acts at the national or state level.
K3. Explain why certain groups are more susceptible to
harmful effects of ionising radiation (e.g. children,
pregnant patients)
K4. Explain the joint responsibility of referrers and
imaging specialists in the justification process of a
radiological examination as specified by European
and national legislation.
K5. List approximate values of radiation doses for
common diagnostic examinations
K6. Explain the importance of the utilisation of clinical
and radiological information from previous
examinations in the process of justification
K7. Discuss some clinical situations where a test with
non-ionising radiation is better than one using
ionising radiation
K8. List and describe available appropriateness criteria
and guidelines applicable in your area of practice
K9. Discuss the information to be provided to patients
with respect to benefits and radiation risk and risk
of procedures in own area of practice
K10. Explain principles governing the use of ionising
radiation in woman of child-bearing age
K11. Discuss the pros and cons of an examination
involving the use of a radiopharmaceutical for
breastfeeding women and action warranted to
protect the child
K12. Explain circumstances in your practice where use
of ionising radiation on a child is justified
S1. Apply the principle of justification to specific
groups of patients and individuals including
the exposure of asymptomatic individuals,
comforters and carers
S2. Identify situations in which the use of ionising
radiation is justified in the case of pregnant
women, women of reproductive age, children
or breast feeding mothers
S3. Assess the cumulative effective dose for a
series of exams for a given individual patient
S4. Carry out a review of the literature to aid
justification in cases for which
appropriateness criteria are not yet available
S5. Explain benefits and risks of particular
procedures to specific patients
S6. Inform patients of their health problems and
the planned procedure
S7. Communicate the radiation risk to the patient
at an understandable level, whenever there
is a significant deterministic or stochastic
risk, or when the patient has a question
C1. Take responsibility for justification in
accordance with requirements in European
and national legislation and guidelines of
professional bodies
C2. Implement published appropriateness criteria
in own practice
C3. Provide necessary information in referral for
imaging facility to aid in optimisation of an
examination
C4. Advise actions in case of inadvertent
radiation exposure of a pregnant patient
C5. Be competent to diagnose radiation induced
skin injury and other potential radiation
effects in a patient or a worker in a radiation
facility and avoid unnecessary referral
C6. Act as a role model for junior colleagues to
support the processes of justification and
optimisation of radiation protection
28
Learning outcomes for physicians directly involved with the use of radiation
4 LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR PHYSICIANS DIRECTLY
INVOLVED WITH THE USE OF RADIATION
The benefits of many procedures, which utilise ionising radiation, are well established and
accepted within the medical profession and by society at large. In order to be deemed
acceptable, these benefits should substantially outweigh any risks which patients are
exposed to during these procedures. This is the basis of the diagnostic and therapeutic
application of ionising radiation in healthcare. When a procedure requires exposure to
ionising radiation the risks to be considered include the associated short and long-term
health risks [1].
Having established the benefits of ionising radiation for the patient, the justification process
ensures that this benefit substantially outweighs any of the short or long-term risks that the
patient may be exposed to.
The ICRP in its 1990 and 2007 recommendations states, as a principle of justification, that
“Any decision that alters the radiation exposure situation should do more good than harm” [2,
3]. Elaborating on the expression “more good than harm” and taking into account the
inherent uncertainty of risk estimation, the benefit should, indeed, substantially outweigh the
incurred risks.
Furthermore, the ICRP recommends using three conceptual levels of justification:
 justification of medical use of radiation in general,
 justification of generic medical procedures (such as the value of mammography as a
practice), and
 explicit justification of a specific procedure with a specific patient.
This chapter focuses on the latter level of justification, the responsibility for which lies jointly
with the referrer and the practitioner.
The radiation protection education and training of physicians directly involved in the use of
ionising radiation should be of high standards as to allow them to follow this principle of
justification on a case-by-case base. The aim of this chapter is to provide the necessary KSC
on radiation protection for each discipline involved directly with the use of ionising radiation.
References
[1] Malone, J. et.al, Justification of a Consultation on Justification of Patient Exposures in
Medical Imaging, Radiation Protection Dosimetry, Vol. 135, No.2, pp. 137-144, 2009.
[2] ICRP, 1991. The Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection, ICRP Publication 60, Ann. ICRP 21 (1-3), 1991.
[3] ICRP, 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 103, Ann. ICRP 37 (2-4), 2007.
4.1 Diagnostic radiologists
The ESR has issued the European Training Charter [1] with the aim of harmonising and
enhancing the quality of radiological care in Europe by providing a template for trainees and
29
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
educators. The charter defines a five-year training period in radiology. The core knowledge of
the first three years of training should not only include relevant radiographic anatomy,
principles of imaging technology, basis of molecular medicine regarding imaging,
fundamentals of clinical research and evidence-based medicine, but also physics and
radiation protection.
During the fourth and fifth years, trainees may opt for training in a subspecialty alongside
general radiology, or opt for general radiology itself as a subspecialty interest area. After the
initial radiology training of five years, fellowship training can be undertaken in a single
subspecialty, which requires a specific curriculum.
The ESR recognises the need for organ system-based subspecialisation rather than
technology-based subspecialisation. It is likely that disease-oriented education will be
required in certain areas. The publication of regular editions of the Training Charter will keep
it up-to-date with developments in various fields of radiology so it can continue to meet the
requirements of radiologists in training.
As healthcare systems vary among countries within the EU, hopefully this document will help
national societies structure their programmes, in coordination with their government and
other competent authorities, into training programmes with a minimum of five years. The
completed training scheme should be sufficient for performing independent practice safely.
However, bearing in mind differences among countries, it is generally accepted that
application of the proposed structure will vary in some aspects among countries [2].
The EC has identified a lack of knowledge on the inherent risks of diagnostic imaging, among
both referring doctors and radiological staff [3]. The White Paper on radiation protection from
the ESR summarises all the different aspects of X-ray-based medical imaging [4]. It is of the
utmost importance for radiologists to understand the scientific basis of diagnostic imaging,
including the associated risks, in order to make the best use of diagnostic modalities for the
benefit of the patient. Therefore, education and training in radiation protection should start
from the very beginning of radiology training and continue throughout the entire career [5].
Professional education has to keep pace with the development of new, more sophisticated
diagnostic tools, as static curricula are producing medical professionals without sufficient
competence [6]. Specific training in related radiation protection aspects should be organised,
together with the development of imaging tools and the implementation of new techniques in
an institution.
The complete list of topics from the EC document RP116 [7] should be included in radiation
protection programmes in diagnostic radiology. These are included in Table 4.1.1.
4.1.1 Radiation protection professional entry requirements
The professional entry requirements for Diagnostic Radiologists should be equivalent to
EQF2 level 7. Radiation protection is a major subject for Diagnostic Radiologists and should
be at the same level as their professional entry level requirements for the EQF [8].
4.1.2 Continuous professional development in radiation protection
Through their careers Diagnostic Radiologists advance to EQF level 8 and this should be
through CPD activities that enhance their KSC to level 8 [9]. Special emphasis should be
given to new diagnostic systems, the acquisition of skills in the practical use of such systems
and in general to advance their justification competence in diagnostic procedures.
References
[1] Revised European Training Charter for Clinical Radiology
http://www.myesr.org/html/img/pool/European_Training_Charter_current_version_Febru
ary_2011.pdf (Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
2
The reader is referred to section 1.6 for more information.
30
Learning outcomes for physicians directly involved with the use of radiation
[2] Charter on training of medical specialists in th the European Community
http://www.uems.net/ (Last time accessed was on the 14 of December 2012).
[3] EC, 2010. Communication to the European Parliament and the Council on medical
applications of ionizing radiation and security of supply of radioisotopes for nuclear
medicine, COM (2010)423
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0423:EN:NOT
(Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[4] White Paper on Radiation Protection
http://www.myesr.org/html/img/pool/ESR_at_Work_02_White_Paper_on_Radiation_Prot
ection.pdf (Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[5] ICRP, 2009. Education and Training in Radiological Protection for Diagnostic and
Interventional Procedures. ICRP Publication 113. Ann. ICRP, 2009;39:1-68.
[6] Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming
education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world Lancet
2010;376:1923–58.
[7] EC, 2000, RP 116. Guidelines on Education and Training in Radiation Protection for
Medical Exposures. Directorate-General Environment, Luxembourg.
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/doc/publication/116.pdf
.(Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012)
[8] ESR Diploma in Radiology,
http://www.myesr.org/cms/website.php?id=/29634/en/education_training/elearning/europ
ean_diploma_in_radiology_edir_.htm (Last time accessed was on the 14th of December
2012).
[9] CME&CPD Guidelines
http://www.myesr.org/html/img/pool/ESR_2006_III_CMECDP_Web.pdf
(Last
time
accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
31
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Table 4.1.1:
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
List sources and properties of ionising radiation
List and explain mechanisms of interaction
between ionising radiation and matter/tissues
K3. List and explain mechanisms of radioactive
decay
K4. Explain the phenomena of X-ray interaction with
matter and the consequences for image
generation, image quality and radiation
exposure
K5. List and explain definitions, quantities and units
of kerma, absorbed energy dose (Gy), organ
and effective doses (Sv), as well as exposure
rate and dose rate
K6. Explain the mechanism of X-ray production
K7. List the components of an X-ray unit and
explain the process of X-ray generation
K8. Explain the function of filters and diaphragms
K9. List the common analogue and digital detectors,
explain their function and their relative pros and
cons
K10. Explain the role of screens (in analogue
radiography) and grids and their effect on
image quality and exposure
S1. Apply radiation physics to optimally select the
best imaging modality
S2. Apply radiation physics to optimise the
protocols, using minimal exposure to reach
the image quality level needed for the task
S3. Use the laws of physics to minimise scatter
and optimise contrast
S4. Use the correct terms to characterise
exposure in daily radiograph fluoroscope and
CT examinations and define organ risk, and
estimate the genetic and cancer risk
Radiation physics
K1.
K2.
Equipment
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for diagnostic radiologists
S5. Continuously check image quality to
recognise and correct technical defects
S6. Demand the best in image quality, technical
innovation and exposure reduction for the
lowest cost
S7. Coordinate the commissioning of new
equipment with the other members of the core
team (radiographer, medical physicist)
S8. Use the technical features of the specific
equipment and take advantage of all qualityimproving and dose-reducing capabilities
while recognising the limits of the machine
32
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C1. Choose the best equipment for your patient
spectrum based on the resources available
Learning outcomes for physicians directly involved with the use of radiation
General radiation protection
Radiobiology
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
K11. Describe radiation effects on cells and DNA
S9. Inform patients of their health problems and
K12. Describe cellular mechanisms of radiation
the planned procedure
response, repair, and cell survival
S10. Communicate the radiation risk to the patient
K13. Describe radiation effects on tissues and
at an understandable level, whenever there is
organs
a significant deterministic or stochastic risk, or
K14. Explain differences in radiation response
when the patient has a question
between healthy tissue and tumours as basis
for radiation treatment
K15. Define and explain stochastic and teratogenic
radiation effects and tissue reactions
K16. Describe types and magnitudes of radiation risk
from radiation exposure in medicine
K17. Describe the basic principles of radiation
S11. Communicate with referrer regarding
protection, as outlined by the ICRP
justification; if necessary, suggest a different
K18. Specify types and magnitudes of radiation
test
exposure from natural and artificial sources
S12. Apply the three levels of justification in daily
K19. Describe concepts of dose determination and
practice, with respect to existing guidelines,
dose measurement for patients, occupationally
but also to individual cases (e.g.
exposed personnel and the public
polymorbidity)
K20. Explain the nature of radiation exposure and
the relevant dose limits for the worker, including
organ doses and dose limits for pregnant
workers, comforters, careers, and the general
public
33
C2. Take responsibility for choosing the best
imaging modalities for the individual patient
(radiography, CT, alternatives such as
ultrasound or MRI) by taking into
consideration the risk of the disease, patient,
age and size, the dose level of the procedure,
and exposure of different critical organs
C3. Consult both the patient and staff on
pregnancy related concerns in radiation
protection
C4. Take responsibility for patient dose
management in different imaging modalities
being aware of specific patient dose levels
Radiation protection in radiology (X-rays)
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
K21. Define ALARA and its applicability to diagnostic
radiology settings
K22. Explain the concepts and tools for dose
management in diagnostic radiology with regard
to adult and paediatric patients
K23. Explain the factors influencing image quality
and dose in diagnostic radiology
K24. Describe the methods and tools for dose
management in diagnostic radiology:
radiography, fluoroscopy, CT, mammography,
and those for paediatric patients
K25. Explain the basic concepts of patient dose
measurement and calculation for the different
modalities in diagnostic radiology
K26. Describe the key considerations relevant to
radiation protection when designing a
diagnostic radiology department
K27. List diagnostic procedures performed outside
radiology department with relevant radiation
protection considerations
K28. List expected doses (reference person ) for
frequent diagnostic radiology procedures
K29. Explain quantitative risk and dose assessment
for workers and the general public in diagnostic
radiology
K30. Explain the concepts and tools for radiation
protection optimisation
S13. Optimise imaging protocols by using
standard operating procedures (SOPs) and
by adapting these to the specific patient’s
size
S14. Use specific paediatric protocols, by taking
into consideration the physics of small size,
but also the elevated risk, vulnerability and
specific pathology of each age group
S15. Choose the best compromise between riskbenefit ratios, image quality and radiation
exposure on a case-by-case basis.
S16. Supervise the use of personal protective
equipment. Support monitoring of the
workplace and individuals. Support
exposure assessment, investigation and
follow up, health surveillance, and records
S17. Apply radiation protection measures in
diagnostic radiology (radiography,
fluoroscopy-intervention, CT,
mammography and paediatric patients) and
advise on their use.
S18. Stay within guidance/ reference levels in
daily practice
S19. Set up size-specific protocols for high-dose
procedures
S20. Estimate organ doses and effective doses
for diagnostic radiology examinations,
based on measurable exposure parameters
(KAP,DLP)
34
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C5.
Advise patients on the radiation-related risks
and benefits of a planned procedure
C6. Take responsibility for justification of
radiation exposure for every individual
patient, with special consideration for
pregnant patients
C7. Take responsibility for choosing and
performing the diagnostic procedure with
the lowest dose for a given referrer’s
request
C8. Take responsibility for optimising the
radiographic technique/protocol used for a
given diagnostic procedure based on
patient-specific information
C9. Take responsibility for applying the optimal
size-adapted and problem-adapted
individual protocol for high-dose procedures
(CT, fluoroscopy-intervention)
C10. Implement the concepts and tools for
radiation protection optimisation.
Learning outcomes for physicians directly involved with the use of radiation
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Laws and regulations
Quality
K31. Define QA in radiology, QA management and
responsibilities, outline a QA and radiation
protection programme for diagnostic radiology
K32. List the key components of image quality and
their relation to patient exposure
K33. Explain the principle of diagnostic reference
levels (DRLs)
K34. List national and international bodies involved in
radiation protection regulatory processes
K35. Specify the relevant regulatory framework
(ordinances, directives, regulations, etc.)
governing the medical use of ionising radiation
in your country and the EU
K36. Specify the relevant regulatory framework
governing the practice of diagnostic radiology
in your country
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
S21. Apply standards of acceptable image
quality. Perform retake analyses.
Understand the effects of poor-quality
images
S22. Avoid unnecessary radiation exposure
during pregnancy by screening the patient
before examination (warning signs,
questionnaire, pregnancy test, etc.)
S23. Double check the appropriate protection
measures when exposing a pregnant
woman (size and positioning of the x-ray
field, gonad shielding, tube-to-skin distance,
correct beam filtration, minimising and
recording the fluoroscopy time, excluding
non-essential projections, avoiding repeat
radiographs)
S24. Develop an organisational policy to keep
doses to the personnel ALARA
S25. Find and apply the relevant regulations and
guidance for any clinical situation in
radiology
C11. Supervise QC procedures on all equipment
related to patient exposure
C12. Take responsibility for the establishment of
formal systems of work (SOPs)
C13. Take responsibility for organisational issues
and implementation of responsibilities and
local rules
C14. Take responsibility for organising the
radiological workflow in order to avoid
accidental / unintended exposures and for
adequate handling of such an event
35
C15. Take responsibility for compliance with
regulatory requirements concerning
occupational and public radiation exposures
C16. Take responsibility for compliance with
ALARA principles concerning occupational
and public radiation exposure
C17. Take responsibility for conforming with
patient protection regulations (DRLs, where
applicable)
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
4.2 Interventional radiologists
Interventional radiology (IR) is a branch of radiology which utilises minimally invasive imageguided procedures to diagnose and treat diseases in nearly every organ system [1]. The
concept behind IR is to diagnose and treat patients using the least invasive techniques
currently available in order to minimise risk to the patient and improve health outcomes.
There are a number of other medical specialties using image-guided interventional
techniques with ionising radiation. These include surgeons, e.g. orthopaedic surgeons,
vascular surgeons, and medical specialists such as cardiologists, gastroenterologists, etc.
[2]. These are considered in section 4.3.
The main advantages of using an image-guided minimally invasive interventional approach
are the reduction of scars and pain and faster post-operative recovery. Moreover,
interventional procedures are now considered the gold standard of care in many diseases of
both vascular and non-vascular origin, and have replaced traditional surgical procedures in
several fields. It has to be noted that in almost every case, IR procedures are justified from
the point of view of radiation protection [3, 4, 5].
Knowledge of radiation protection by itself is not enough and further skills and competences
are needed. Training in radiation protection should become an essential part of the IR
training process. Clearly, the best IR performer will use less fluoroscopy. The dose
management and radiation protection training should therefore be an integral, essential
component of any training and not stand alone [6].
Recently, medical simulators have been introduced in almost every field of modern medical
practice, including fluoroscopy-guided procedures [7]. The scenarios are almost identical to
the real procedure, but have no limitations regarding the complications or use of ionising
radiation, which mean the skills required are also the same. Moreover, many new techniques
used by any trained specialist can be, and are initially, rehearsed on the simulator.
Simulators include procedure logs that allow individual recording and documentation of any
learning (self-assessment) process, as well as a means to examine the trainee.
4.2.1 Radiation protection professional entry requirements
IR is a specialty of diagnostic radiology and the entry level to this profession is level 7 and
above3, therefore the radiation protection entry requirements should be equivalent to those of
Diagnostic Radiology at level 7.
4.2.2 Continuous professional development in radiation protection
Through their careers Interventional Radiologists advance to EQF level 8 and this should be
through CPD activities that enhance their KSC to level 8. Apart from enhancing their general
KSC, particularly on new IR systems, special emphasis should be given to the acquisition of
skills in the practical use of IR systems.
References
[1] CIRSE, 2007. Clinical Practice in Interventional Radiology, Volume I, Version 0.1,
Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe, 2007,
http://www.cirse.org/files/files/Clinical%20Practice%20Manual%20Final%20Version.pdf
(Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[2] CIRSE, 2008. A European Interventional Radiology Syllabus, Cardiovascular and
Interventional
Radiological
Society
of
Europe,
Version
0.1
/
2008,
http://www.cirse.org/files/files/cirse_syllabus_2008_web.pdf (Last time accessed was on
the 14th of December 2012).
3
The reader is referred to section 1.6 for more information.
36
Learning outcomes for physicians directly involved with the use of radiation
[3] Donald L. Miller, et al., Occupational radiation protection in Interventional Radiology: A
Joint Guideline of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe
and the Society of Interventional Radiology, Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol (2010) 33:230–
239.
[4] T. Gregory Walker, et al., Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endovascular Abdominal Aortic
Aneurysm Repair, J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010; 21:1632–1655.
[5] Dauer LT, et al., Radiation management for interventions using fluoroscopic or
computed tomographic guidance during pregnancy: a joint guideline of the Society of
Interventional Radiology and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society
of Europe, Radiology Safety and Health Committee; Cardiovascular and Interventional
Radiology Society of Europe Standards of Practice Committee, J Vasc Interv Radiol.
2012 Jan;23(1):19-32. Epub 2011 Nov 23.
[6] Michael S. Stecker, et. Al., Guidelines for Patient Radiation Dose Management, J Vasc
Interv Radiol 2009; 20:S263–S273.
[7] Derek A. Gould, et al., 2006. Simulation Devices in Interventional Radiology: Validation
Pending, J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006; 17:215–216
http://www.sirweb.org/clinical/cpg/215.pdf (Last time accessed was on the 14th of
December 2012).
37
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Table 4.2.1:
Additional learning outcomes for interventional radiologists
Radiobiology
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
K1.
Understand special requirements of image
formation and image quality aspects with
respect to fluoroscopy
S1.
Apply radiation physics to optimise
interventional protocols, using minimal
exposure to reach the desired procedure
outcome
K2.
Understand and explain in detail the following
features of fluoroscopes: flat-panel/imageintensifier detectors (including problems with
image intensifiers such as geometric distortion,
environmental magnetic field effects),
continuous and pulsed acquisition (including
frame rate, automatic brightness control, highdose rate fluoroscopy, cine runs, last image
hold, road mapping)
S2.
Use the technical features of the specific
equipment, on a daily basis, applying all
quality-improving and dose-reducing
capabilities, while recognising the limits of
the imaging machine or interventional device
K3.
Explain radiobiological dose-effect relationships
relevant to IR with respect to patient safety,
including discussion of the physical and
biological background; response of tissues to
radiation on molecular, cellular and macroscopic
level; models of radiation-induced cancer,
hereditary risks; and radiation effects on adults,
children and conception.
Equipment
Radiation
physics
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
38
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C1. Choose the best interventional equipment
for your patient range based on the
resources available
Learning outcomes for physicians directly involved with the use of radiation
Radiation protection in interventional radiology (X-rays)
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
K4.
K5.
K6.
K7.
K8.
K9.
K10.
K11.
K12.
K13.
Define ALARA and its applicability to IR settings
Explain the meaning of justification and
optimisation as applied to IR practices
Explain the concepts and tools for dose
management in IR of adult and paediatric
patients
Explain the factors influencing image quality and
dose in IR
Describe the methods and tools for dose
management in IR
Explain the basic concepts of patient dose
measurement and calculation in IR
Describe the key considerations relevant to
radiation protection when designing an IR unit
List expected doses (reference person) for the
main IR procedures
Explain quantitatively the risk and dose
assessment for workers and public in IR
Explain and discuss the latest evidence of lowdose effects on Interventional Radiologists
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
S3.
S4.
S5.
S6.
S7.
S8.
S9.
Optimise procedure protocols by using
SOPs for IR and by adapting these to the
specific patient size
Choose the best compromise between riskbenefit ratio, image quality, procedure
outcome and radiation exposure on a caseby-case basis
Supervise the use of personal protective
equipment by interventional staff, support
the monitoring of the workplace and
individuals and exposure assessment,
investigation and follow up, health
surveillance and records
Apply and advise on the use of radiation
protection measures in IR, particularly for the
eyes
Estimate effective doses from IR procedures
based on measurable exposure parameters
(KAP, skin dose)
Estimate cases of high doses to the skin
Calculate patient risk from measurement
data from the dosimetry quantities used to
assess adverse biological effects
39
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C2. Advise patients on the radiation-related risks
and benefits of a planned interventional
procedure
C3. Take responsibility for justification of radiation
exposure in every individual patient
undergoing an IR procedure, with special
consideration for pregnant (or possibly
pregnant) patients
C4. Take responsibility for optimising the
technique/protocol used for a given
interventional procedure based on patientspecific needs
C5. Take responsibility for applying the principles
of justification (risk/benefit assessment),
optimisation (including ALARA) and the setting
up of reference levels to protect the patient
from unnecessary risk from radiation
C6. Take responsibility for applying the optimal
size-adapted and problem-adapted individual
protocol for high-dose procedures (TIPS etc.)
C7. Take responsibility for avoiding very high
doses to the skin, which can cause
deterministic effects
C8. Follow-up patients to check for the
appearance of deterministic effects
C9. Take responsibility for and establish practices
to ensure dose limitation to staff
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
K14. Define QA in IR. Explain its management and
responsibilities.
K15. List the key components of image quality and
their relation to procedural patient exposure
K16. Explain the principle of DRLs in IR procedures
S10. Understand the effects of poor-quality
images in IR procedures
S11. Avoid unnecessary patient radiation
exposure during IR procedures by optimising
the techniques performed (size and
positioning of the x-ray field, gonad
shielding, tube-to-skin distance, correct
beam filtration, minimising and recording the
fluoroscopy time, excluding non-essential
projections)
S12. Develop an organisational policy to keep
doses to IR personnel ALARA
K17. Specify the relevant regulatory framework
governing the practice of IR in your country
S13. Find and apply the relevant regulations for
any clinical situation in IR
Quality
Laws and
regulations
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
40
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C10. Take responsibility for conforming with
patient protection regulations (including
procedural reference levels, where
applicable)
Learning outcomes for physicians directly involved with the use of radiation
4.3 Non-radiological specialists employing ionising radiation in
interventional techniques
The extensive use of ionising radiation outside of radiology departments, by non-radiologists,
means that these medical specialists require similar radiation protection education and
training. These medical specialists include interventional cardiologists, electrophysiologists,
vascular surgeons, angiologists, urologists, orthopaedic surgeons, neurosurgeons,
gastroenterologists, gynaecologists and anaesthetists involved in pain management.
These specialists should receive basic radiation protection education and training during their
general medical education as outlined in chapter two. To rely on this basic training to provide
sufficient levels of patient and practitioner safety without further training or education is,
however, not realistic. Further education of non-radiological specialists is therefore essential
[1].
It is important to make a distinction between those specialists who perform procedures that
have the potential to deliver high radiation doses, e.g. cardiologists, angiologists, vascular
surgeons who use mobile or fixed digital subtraction angiography (DSA) units to acquire
multiple DSA runs and neurosurgeons who work with C arms, and those specialists who
perform low-dose procedures, e.g. gastroenterologists [2], orthopaedic surgeons, urologists
who use fluoroscopy- often pulsed- with occasional static images to document a procedure.
For specialists who perform potentially high-dose procedures, learning objectives that are
similar to those for interventional radiologists are required. For specialists who perform lowdose procedures, practical aspects of radiation protection should have a priority and training
programmes should focus on the achievement of skills.
Radiation protection education and training for all specialties involved in the use of ionising
radiation should be conducted under the auspices of the Institutional Radiation Safety
Committee or Officer in accordance with regulatory requirements, local rules and procedures.
The involvement of the radiological department in radiation protection education and
trainings advisable as radiologists have the necessary radiation protection knowledge and
expertise, understand the legal framework, are familiar with the equipment in the local setting
and receive dedicated CPD.
Practical training should be performed by a dedicated team of experts (radiologists,
interventional radiologists, other relevant specialists and MPs) in conjunction with the
department of radiology.
4.3.1 Radiation protection professional entry requirements
Radiation protection education and training does not form a formal requirement for the entry
into these medical specialties and the radiation protection entry requirements4 for their
professions should at least correspond to the core learning outcomes at EQF level 5 (see
chapter 2).
However, before any such professional starts to perform IR techniques, they must acquire
additional KSC specific to their profession. This must be at least EQF level 6.
4.3.2 Continuous professional development in radiation protection
It is comparatively rare that non-radiological specialists employing interventional techniques
have the necessary radiation protection KSC upon entry to their profession and therefore
must acquire these through appropriate CPD activities before starting to employ
interventional techniques. The required radiation protection KSC EQF level should be level 6.
4
The reader is referred to section 1.6 for more information.
41
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
Throughout their careers they should aim to enhance their radiation protection KSC, with
particular emphasis on the acquisition of practical skills in the use of IR procedures
appropriate for their profession.
References
[1]
ICRP, 2010. Radiological Protection in Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures Performed
Outside the Imaging Department. ICRP Publication 117. Ann. ICRP 40(6).
[2]
Dumonceau J-M, Garcia-Fernandez FJ, Verdun FR, Carinou E, Donadille L, Damilakis
J, Mouzas I, Paraskeva K, Ruiz-Lopez N, Struelens L, Tsapaki V, Vanhavere F,
Valatas V, Sans-Merce M, Radiation protection in digestive endoscopy: European
Society of Digestive Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline, Endoscopy 2012;44:408-424.
42
Learning outcomes for physicians directly involved with the use of radiation
Table 4.3.1:
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for non-radiological specialists employing high-dose interventional
techniques
Radiobiology
Equipment
Radiation physics
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
K1. Understand the nature of X-rays as ionising
radiation within the electromagnetic spectrum
K2. Explain background radiation
K3. Describe how X-rays for diagnostic applications
are produced
K4. Understand the basic function of X-ray systems
K5. Describe the concept of the imaging ‘chain’, from
initiating the X-ray exposure to displaying the
image
K6. Describe the construction, function and variety of
equipment for applying specific interventional
procedures (C-arm system, Portable C-arm,
Hybrid or installed angiography suite equipment)
S1. Continuously check image quality to
recognise technical defects in specific
interventional procedures
K7. Explain the biological effects of radiation.
K8. Understand somatic and genetic effects of X-rays
on tissues
K9. Understand stochastic effects and radiationinduced tissue reactions
S2. Inform patients of their problems and the
planned procedure
S3. Communicate the nature of radiation risks
effectively to patients.
43
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Laws and
regulations
Quality
Radiation protection in specific interventional
procedures (according to specialty)
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
K10. Describe the basic principles of radiation
protection, as outlined by the ICRP
K11. Understand the need for justification, including
consent in specific interventional procedures.
K12. Understand the need for optimisation and
explain the ALARA principle in specific
interventional procedures
K13. Explain the nature of radiation exposure and
the relevant dose limits for the worker, including
organ doses; dose limits for pregnant workers,
and the public, and for comforters and careers
K14. Explain the concepts and tools for dose
management in specific Interventional
procedures of adult and paediatric patients
K15. List expected doses (to a reference person) for
the main specific Interventional procedures
(according to specialty)
K16. Explain the concepts and tools for radiation
protection optimisation
S4.
K17. Understand the concept of QA
K18. List the key components of image quality and
their relation to patient exposure in specific
Interventional procedures
K19. Explain the principle of DRLs in specific
Interventional procedures
S9.
K20. Specify the relevant regulatory framework
governing specific Interventional procedures
practice in your country
S5.
S6.
S7.
S8.
Apply the three levels of justification in daily
practice, respecting existing guidelines but
also individual specificities (e.g.
polymorbidity)
Stay within guidance/ reference levels in
daily practice
Estimate high skin-dose cases
Apply the concepts and tools for radiation
protection optimisation
Develop an organisational policy to keep
doses to the personnel ALARA
Avoid unnecessary radiation exposure
during pregnancy by screening the patient
before examination (warning signs,
questionnaire, pregnancy test, etc.)
S10. Double check the appropriate protection
measures when exposing a pregnant
woman (size and positioning of the x-ray
field, gonad shielding, tube-to-skin distance,
correct beam filtration, minimising and
recording the fluoroscopy time, excluding
non-essential projections, avoiding repeat
radiographs)
S11. Find and apply the relevant regulations for
any clinical situation in specific
Interventional procedures
44
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C1. Implement protection measures appropriate to
the level of exposure and risk
C2. Take responsibility for avoiding very high
doses to the skin which can have
deterministic effects
C3. Take responsibility for and establish practices
to ensure dose limitation for staff cooperating
in specific interventional procedures
C4. Consult with appropriate professionals to
achieve optimal radiation protection within the
regulations
C5. Follow up patients to check for the
appearance of deterministic effects
C6. Implement the concepts and tools for
radiation protection optimisation
C7. Take responsibility for the establishment of
formal systems of work (SOPs) in specific
Interventional procedures
C8. Take responsibility for conforming with patient
protection regulations (including DRLs, where
applicable)
Learning outcomes for physicians directly involved with the use of radiation
Table 4.3.2:
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for non-radiological specialists employing low level interventional
techniques
Biological effects of
radiation
Interaction of Xrays with matter
Production of Xrays
Nature of Xradiation
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
K1.
K2.
K3.
Be aware of the electromagnetic spectrum
Understand the place of X-rays as ionising
radiation within the electromagnetic spectrum
Explain background radiation
K4.
Describe how X-rays for diagnostic applications
are produced
K5.
K6.
Explain how X-rays interact with matter
Understand the absorption and scatter of Xrays in different materials, including tissues
K7.
K8.
Explain the biological effects of radiation.
Understand somatic and genetic effects of Xrays on tissue
K9. Understand stochastic effects and radiationinduced tissue reactions
K10. List and explain radiation protection aspects
with respect to staff
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
S1. Create a context for risk/benefit discussions
S2. Select radiation protection measures which
use appropriate attenuation of X-rays
S3. Implement measures to avoid scatter and
unnecessary absorption by patients and
vascular operating room (OR) staff
S4. Communicate the nature of radiation risks to
patients effectively
45
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C1. Implement radiation protection based on a
sound understanding of the nature of ionising
radiation
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Radiation dose and
risk
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
K11. Define the units of radiation dose
K12. Understand the concepts of clinical radiation
dose measurement
K13. Describe the factors which influence radiation
exposure and dose
K14. Understand the influence of patient age on
radiation risk
K15. Understand DRLs and European or national
dose surveys
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
S5. Take account of dose when establishing
imaging protocols
S6. Use exposure factors to optimise dose
S7. Take account of patient age and Body Mass
Index (BMI) when establishing imaging
protocols
46
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C2. Implement protection measures appropriate to
the level of exposure and risk
C3. Establish a framework for dose monitoring
C4. Compare patient doses with DRLs and take
appropriate action when necessary
Learning outcomes for physicians directly involved with the use of radiation
4.4 Nuclear medicine specialists
Nuclear Medicine (NM) became an independent medical specialty in the European Directives
in 1988. The minimum duration of postgraduate training for physicians specialising in NM
within the EU is four years, but may be extended beyond this period according to training
requirements for other clinical disciplines.
NM differs from other medical specialties that use ionising radiation in a number of ways,
which also leads to different issues in radiation protection. As a consequence of the use of
unsealed radionuclides:
a. there are risks from external and internal exposure and contamination for all NM
personnel, in particular during preparation and administration of the radioactive
substances;
b. there is very limited control of the behaviour of the radioactive substance once it has been
administered to the patient;
c. the dose absorbed by a specific organ and the effective dose are strongly dependent
upon the patients’ individual bio-kinetics;
d. there are potential radiation risks to the patients’ relatives (e.g. dose to an unborn in utero
or to a breastfed infant) and even to the general public (e.g. external dose from residual
activity in a patient or internal dose from incorporation of radioactivity excreted by a
patient).
Thus candidates for specialised training should have a good general background in internal
medicine as well as the natural sciences. More detailed knowledge has to be acquired on
those medical conditions that may need to be investigated or treated by NM techniques, as
well as on some complementary methods as far as they relate to NM procedures, education
and training in subject areas beyond medicine, such as radiation protection,
pharmacokinetics, radiochemistry, instrumentation, computer science and QC.
The practice of NM is known to vary from department to department within a country, and
from country to country. Not all physicians specialised in NM perform all tasks or procedures.
However, where a task is performed the relevant competence represents what is thought to
be good practice.
Furthermore, the allocation of roles amongst healthcare professions involved in NM (NM
specialist physicians, NM technologists (NMT), and MPs) varies greatly between
departments and countries, with consequences for radiation protection.
While in the majority of cases the NM specialist is legally responsible for all radiation
protection issues, the other professions mentioned can share those responsibilities according
to the nature of their education, as well as legal constraints and specifics of the health
system in the country of their practice. Thus, the radiation protection learning outcomes in
this section are deemed indispensable for NM specialists, but may also be applied to the
education of NM technologists and MPs (whenever not explicitly mentioned in their
respective sections).
The radiation protection learning outcomes for NM Specialists consist of:
1. Basic radiation protection KSC, most of which are not specific to NM and should be part of
the undergraduate education and training in radiation protection, but may need to be
repeated or completed during postgraduate specialisation. Those learning outcomes
consist predominantly of knowledge, with a set of skills and competences as laid out in
tables 2.2 and 3.1.
2. Radiation protection KSC (not limited to, but with an emphasis on the specialities of NM)
for the areas of:
47
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
a. patient exposure (diagnostic and therapeutic),
b. occupational and public exposure,
c. advanced or specialised imaging and therapeutic techniques as presented in Table
4.4.1,
d. exposure to comforters and carers.
4.4.1 Radiation protection professional entry requirements
NM is a medical specialty and the basic radiation protection KSC should be acquired during
the period of general medical education at level 5 of the EQF5 (see chapter 2) [1]. During
specialisation their level of radiation protection KSC is expected to be enhanced to the same
level as the overall profession at EQF level 7, with radiation protection forming an integral
part of their specialisation [2, 3].
If required by national regulations, certification in radiation protection should be part of the
certification as NM Specialist through a national board after education and training as
detailed in the ‘Syllabus for postgraduate specialisation in NM’ [2].
4.4.2 Continuous professional development in radiation protection
During their careers NM Specialists advance to EQF level 8 through CPD activities that
enhance their radiation protection KSC to level 8. Apart from enhancing their general KSC,
e.g. on new diagnostic techniques or radiopharmaceuticals, emphasis should be given to the
acquisition of KSC in the safe use of radiopharmaceuticals for therapeutic procedures.
If required by national regulations, re-certification in radiation protection should be conducted
at, at least, EQF level 7.
References
[1]
ICRP, 2009. Education and Training in Radiological Protection for Diagnostic and
Interventional Procedures. ICRP Publication 113. Ann. ICRP 2009;39(5).
[2]
Prigent A, Huic D, Costa DC., Syllabus for Postgraduate Specialization in Nuclear
Medicine--2011/2012 Update: nuclear medicine training in the European Union. Eur J
Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012 Apr;39(4):739-43.
[3]
Fellowship
of
the
European
Board
of
Nuclear
Medicine,
http://uems.eanm.org/committees/fellowship_examination/ebnm_fellow_certificate.php
(Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
5
The reader is referred to section 1.6 for more information.
48
Learning outcomes for physicians directly involved with the use of radiation
Table 4.4.1:
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
Specify the relevant regulatory framework
governing the practice of NM in your country
K2. List DRLs and expected doses for common NM
diagnostic procedures
K3. Explain the magnitude of risk as a function of
patients’ dose, age and prognosis
K4. Explain the concepts and tools for scaling
activity in paediatric NM (EANM paediatric
dosage card)
K5. Explain the relevant regulations concerning
treatment on an in-patient/out-patient basis, as
well as patient release criteria
K6. Explain the principle and process of QA for nonimaging devices such as activity meters (dose
calibrators) and probes
K7. Explain the principle and process of QA of NM
imaging devices, such as gamma camera,
SPECT, PET (and their combination with CT)
K8. Describe the principles and process involved in
intravenous, oral, and inhaled
radiopharmaceutical administrations
K9. Describe action to be taken after
misadministration
K10. Explain clinical consequences of administration
to a pregnant patient or a patient becoming
pregnant in the weeks following a radionuclide
therapy
K11. Describe procedures for dealing with
incontinent patients
K12. Explain the main factors in optimisation of
image quality versus administered activity, like
choice of collimator, energy window, or
tomographic reconstruction algorithm
S1. Apply the principles of justification (risk /
benefit assessment) and optimisation
(including ALARA), taking into account
existing guidance on indications for NM
procedures
S2. Decide on radiopharmaceuticals and
procedures to be used, taking into account
DRLs
S3. For each diagnostic or therapeutic
procedure, apply European and national
laws, regulations, recommendations and
standards related to patient safety
S4. Evaluate the radiation risk to
embryo/foetus against the benefits of a
NM procedure
S5. Determine the activity to be applied to
paediatric patients, depending on body
mass
S6. Calculate organ dose and effective dose
from residence times, using tools such as
OLINDA/EXM
S7. Choose the procedure to be applied for
treatment of benign thyroid disease, from
the data of a radioiodine test
S8. Set up a patient-specific treatment plan
(together with an MPE) for a given
therapeutic procedure
S9. Design appropriate safety measures for
management of in-patients administered
with therapeutic doses of
radiopharmaceuticals
S10. Identify clinical indications permitting the
use of low-dose CT in combined imaging
procedure
C1. Advise patients on the risks and benefits of a
planned NM procedure
C2. Take responsibility for the justification of every
patient’s radiation exposure, with special
consideration for cases of pregnant patients
C3. Take responsibility for choosing and performing
the least dose-intense diagnostic procedure for a
given referrer’s request, taking into account
availability of radiopharmaceutical compounds as
well as the possibility of using other imaging
modalities, which do not expose the patient to
ionising radiation
C4. Take responsibility for conforming with DRLs,
where applicable
C5. Take responsibility for optimising the
radiopharmaceutical and the activity used for a
given diagnostic procedure based on patientspecific information
C6. Take responsibility for optimising patients’
exposure from CT in combined imaging
modalities, depending on the clinical situation and
the feature set of the imaging device
C7. Supervise QC procedures on all equipment
related to patient exposure (e.g. activity meters,
probes, imaging devices like gamma cameras,
SPECT, PET)
C8. Take responsibility for therapeutic procedures
concerning indication and adherence to
authorised procedures
C9. Take responsibility for applying the optimal
activity for a given therapeutic procedure as
determined in a patient-specific treatment plan
(set up together with an MPE)
C10. Implement SOPs for all diagnostic investigations
performed regularly
K1.
Nuclear medicine patient radiation protection
Additional learning outcomes for nuclear medicine specialists
49
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Nuclear Medicine occupational and public radiation Nuclear medicine patient radiation
protection
protection
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
K13. Explain the options for optimising patient dose
from CT when using combined imaging
modalities like PET/CT, SPECT/CT etc.
K14. Explain the basic concepts of the MIRD scheme,
including time-integrated activity in source region
(cumulated activity) and time-integrated activity
coefficient (residence time)
K15. Explain how to determine which procedure
should be applied for the treatment of benign
thyroid disease from a radioiodine test
K16. List therapeutic procedures performed less
frequently or in specialised institutions and their
special radiation protection aspects
S11. Design appropriate measures for the
management of accidental/unintended
exposure, e.g. intravenous extravasation
K17. Describe general rules for working with unsealed
radionuclides
K18. Describe the key considerations relevant to
radiation protection when designing a new NM
facility
K19. Explain the nature and sources of internal and
external radiation exposure for workers in NM
and the public
K20. Explain quantitative risk and dose assessment for
workers in NM
K21. List procedures with potentially high doses for
extremities and eye lenses, such as the use of
high-energy beta emitters.
K22. Explain quantitative risk and dose assessment
(where applicable) for the public, with regard to
NM procedures
K23. Describe the requirements for regulatory
compliance with respect to the management and
use of sealed and unsealed sources; including
requirements for storage, shielding, recordkeeping and audit.
S12. Develop an organisational policy for the
safe handling of unsealed radionuclides
(e.g. storage, shielding, record keeping,
transportation, and waste)
S13. Develop an organisational policy to keep
doses to personnel from external and
internal (inhalation, ingestion) exposure
ALARA
S14. Identify procedures that require special
operational protection, e.g. extra shielding
or remote handling
S15. Identify procedures that require special
dose monitoring, e.g. finger dosimeters or
incorporation monitoring
S16. Identify procedures that require
instructions for patients (and comforters,
carers) on minimising exposure (external
and internal)
S17. Apply for ethical and legal approval of
exposure in medical research
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C11.
C12.
C13.
C14.
50
C15.
C16.
C17.
C18.
C19.
C20.
Implement SOPs for all therapeutic procedures
performed regularly at one’s institution
Implement SOPs for the management of
accidental/unintended exposure
Advise breastfeeding patients on temporal or
complete abandonment of breastfeeding
depending on the radiopharmaceutical and
administered activity
Advise both female and male patients on
periods during which they should avoid
conception following radionuclide therapy
Take responsibility for compliance with
regulatory requirements and ALARA principles
concerning occupational and public radiation
exposures in own department
Take responsibility for the establishment of
formal systems of work (SOPs)
Implement a monitoring programme for external
and internal exposure of workers according to
the procedures performed and the
corresponding risks
Implement an organisational policy for
protecting pregnant workers from incorporation
risks in controlled areas.
Implement instructions to patients leaving NM
diagnostic units, particularly with 111In
Give instructions to patients leaving NM therapy
units, particularly with 131I administered for
treatment of thyroid cancer and hyperthyroidism
Learning outcomes for physicians directly involved with the use of radiation
Nuclear Medicine occupational and
public radiation protection
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
K23. Describe the requirements for regulatory
compliance with regard to the management and
disposal of radioactive waste and the
transportation of radioactive substances
K24. List relevant dose limits for workers (including
organ doses), for pregnant workers and general
public, as well for comforters and carers.
K25. Explain the ethical and legal issues regarding the
exposure of volunteers in medical research,
involving administration of radiopharmaceuticals
K26. List and explain the relevant occupational
radiation protection issues associated with all
specialised procedures performed at one’s own
institution, e.g. radio-synovectomy, targeted
therapies with alpha or beta emitters
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
S18. Develop organisational policies for the
optimisation of patients’ and workers’
exposures in all specialised procedures
51
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C21. Take responsibility for compliance with legal
and ethical requirements when exposing
volunteers in medical research or patients in
clinical studies
C22. Implement SOPs for all specialised
procedures performed regularly at one’s own
institution
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
4.5 Radiation oncologists
In 2010, ESTRO issued revised guidelines for education and training in radiation oncology.
The new guidelines are an updated version of the guidelines that were first published in 1991
and then updated in 2002 and 2010 [1, 2].
Contemporary medical education and training is based on competence. With that in mind,
ESTRO decided to revise the core curriculum based on the principles of competence-based
training. These competences are defined by the Canadian CanMEDS system [3] and include
the following:
1.
Medical expertise
2.
Communication
3.
Collaboration
4.
Knowledge and science
5.
Health advocacy/Social actions
6.
Management/Organisation
7.
Professionalism.
Knowledge and science, item 4 above, includes comprehension of basic radiation physics,
radiation physics applied to radiation therapy, radiation biology and radiation protection as
follows:

Radiobiology

Basic radiation physics

Radiation physics applied to radiation therapy

Concepts and principles of radiation protection
Based on these competences, as well as clinical insight and other scientific insight and
knowledge, a set of learning outcomes have been summarised in Table 4.5.1.
These guidelines have been endorsed by European National Radiation Oncology societies
and the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) [4].
4.5.1 Radiation protection professional entry requirements
The professional entry requirements for Radiation Oncologists should be equivalent to EQF
level 76. Radiation protection is a major subject for Radiation Oncologists and should be at
the same level as their professional EQF entry level requirements.
4.5.2 Continuous professional development in radiation protection
Through their careers Radiation Oncologists advance to level 8 of the EQF and this should
be through CPD activities that enhance their KSC to level 8. Special emphasis should be
placed on new therapeutic systems, techniques and procedures, and the acquisition of skills
in the practical use of particularly new procedures. This should help advance their
justification competence in therapeutic procedures.
6
The reader is referred to section 1.6 for more information.
52
Learning outcomes for physicians directly involved with the use of radiation
References
[1]
Eriksen JG, et al., The updated ESTRO core curricula 2011 for clinicians, medical
physicists and RTTs in radiotherapy/radiation oncology, Radiotherapy and Oncology
2012 Apr;103(1):103-8,
http://www.estro-education.org/courses/Documents/The%20updated%20ESTRO
%20core%20curricula%202011%20for%20clinicians,%20medical%20physicists%20an
d%20RTTs.pdf (Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[2]
ESTRO, 2010. Recommended ESTRO Core Curriculum for Radiation
Oncologists/Radiotherapists. 3rd Edition, Edited April 2010,
http://www.estro-education.org/europeantraining/Documents/CC_FINALapproved
ESTRO_CCApril2010.pdf (Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[3]
CanMEDS, 2005. The CanMEDS 2005 Physician Competency Framework - Better
standards. Better physicians. Better care. (Frank JR, Ed.). Ottawa: the Royal College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
http://www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/canmeds/framework
(Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[4]
EUMS, 2002. Radiotherapy, Chapter 6, Charter on Training of Medical Specialists in
the EU, Requirements for the Specialty Radiotherapy. Draft of the UEMS Specialist
Section Radiotherapy, updated September 2002.
http://www.estro-education.org/europeantraining/Documents/Chapter%206%20UEMS
%20Charter-upd.pdf (Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
53
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Table 4.5.1:
Additional learning outcomes in radiation protection for radiation oncologists
Basic radiation physics
Radiobiology
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
K1. Describe the interaction of radiation on the
molecular level
K2. Explain DNA damage
K3. Describe the cellular effects, mechanisms of cell
death
K4. Describe the repair of radiation damage
K5. Explain the cell survival curves
K6. Describe the normal tissue systems
K7. Describe solid tumour and leukaemia systems
K8. Explain the effects of oxygen, sensitizers and
protectors
K9. Explain the effect of time-dose fractionation,
Linear energy transfer (LET), different radiation
modalities and the interaction between cytotoxic
therapy and radiation
K10. Describe predictive assays
S1. Communicate knowledge of clinical and
radiological anatomy, physics and biology to
diagnosis and therapy
K11. Describe atomic and nuclear structure
K12. Describe radioactive decay
K13. Describe radioisotopes
S2. Analyse the properties of particle and
electromagnetic radiation
54
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
Learning outcomes for physicians directly involved with the use of radiation
Radiation physics applied to radiation therapy
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
K14. Explain the mechanism of operation of an X-ray
tube
K15. Explain the mechanism of operation of a linear
accelerator
K16. Describe collimating systems
K17. Describe brachytherapy systems
K18. Explain the mechanism of action of a cyclotron
K19. Explain absorbed dose
K20. Define target absorbed dose specification in
external RT
K21. Define target absorbed dose specification in
brachytherapy
K22. Illustrate algorithms for 3D dose calculations
K23. Explain applications of conformal RT, IMRT,
IGRT, stereotactic RT and particle therapy
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
S3. Apply treatment planning including, 3D
planning and virtual and CT simulation. Apply
these procedures to plan patients’ treatments
S4. Evaluate the benefits of conformal and special
radiotherapy techniques (IORT, stereotactic
radiotherapy)
S5. Address algorithms for 2D dose calculations
S6. Examine treatment options in the light of the
prognosis
S7. Develop an evidence-based treatment
strategy and assess patients for curative and
palliative external beam radiotherapy and
brachytherapy
S8. Analyse and synthesise research evidence to
change practice
S9. Develop a radiotherapy treatment strategy
and technique
S10. Adapt treatment plans according to patient’s
individual needs, pre-morbid conditions,
toxicity of radiotherapy and systemic
treatments
S11. Assess and manage patients undergoing
external beam radiotherapy and
brachytherapy
S12. Adapt course of radiotherapy treatment for
individual patients according to severity of
reactions, including adjustment for gaps in
treatment
55
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C1. Consult patients on radiotherapy and ensure
follow up of treatment response
C2. Recommend appropriate dose and
fractionation schedule for curative and
palliative external beam radiotherapy and
brachytherapy
C3. Audit an external beam
radiotherapy/brachytherapy treatment plan in
collaboration with physicists and
radiographers and be aware of the
consequences of one’s actions and those of
others
C4. Assess the risk of an external beam radiation
therapy and brachytherapy treatment plan
C5. Engage in planning using IMRT and other
techniques such as stereotactic, particle and
IGRT
C6. Authorise a radiotherapy treatment
C7. Assess patients for combined modality
therapy
C8. Take clinical responsibility for the delivery of
radiation therapy together with systemic
agents (and where necessary to work in
collaboration with other medical specialists
involved in systemic therapies ) on an inpatient or out-patient basis
C9. Take responsibility for the clinical implications
of IGRT
C10. Take responsibility for the clinical implications
and procedures of brachytherapy using
sealed and unsealed sources
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
protection
Concepts and principles of radiation
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
K24. Explain the general philosophy of radiation
protection including ALARA
K25. Explain the risk of induction of secondary
tumours
K26. Describe radiation weighting factor
K27. Explain equivalent dose – tissue weighting factor
K28. Explain occupational/public health consequences
of radiation exposure, radiation protection and
dose limits for occupational and public exposure
K29. Explain the management of
accidental/unintended exposures
K30. Describe the European and national legislation
K31. Describe evidence based in radiation protection
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
S13. Analyse stochastic effects and tissue
reactions
S14. Investigate accidental/unintended exposures
56
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C11. Engage in QA and follow safety policies
C12. Manage accidental/unintended exposures
Learning outcomes for dentists/dental surgeons
5 LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR DENTISTS/DENTAL
SURGEONS
In 2005, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the Directive 2005/36/EC on the
recognition of professional qualifications [1]. In that document the following has been stated
on the profession of dentistry: “All MS must recognise the profession of dental practitioner as
a specific profession distinct from that of medical practitioner, whether or not specialised in
odonto-stomatology. The MS must ensure that the training given to dental practitioners
equips them with the skills needed for prevention, diagnosis and treatment relating to
anomalies and illnesses of the teeth, mouth, jaws and associated tissues”.
In the context of radiation protection, dentistry is unique in that it is largely primary carebased and the roles of referrer and practitioner are usually combined. In addition, dentists
often work in relative isolation from colleagues and without readily available support from a
dental peer group or radiation protection support professionals. Notwithstanding this, practice
in this area is governed by the Euratom BSS [2]. Guidance for dental professionals on
radiation protection at a European level is available from the EC radiation protection
publications 136 and 172 [3, 4, 5].
The Association for Dental Education in its document ‘Profile and Competences for the
European Dentist’ published in 2004 stated that a graduating dentist should have knowledge
of the hazards of ionising radiation and its effects on biological tissues, together with the
regulations relating to its use, including radiation, protection and dose reduction and should
be competent in managing ionising radiation [6].
In addition, the radiation protection situation in dentistry involves specialist dental and
maxillofacial radiologists and a number of ancillary groups/dental care professionals who
play roles in radiography. With regard to the dental and maxillofacial radiologists, the most
logical way to treat this group is the same as diagnostic radiologists (section 4.1). Other
groups of medical and dental care professionals (e.g. radiographers, dental nurses,
hygienists, therapists, etc.) play varied and important roles and need to be treated
separately, particularly in the context of variability of practice and role classification within
Europe. The KSC learning outcomes in Table 5.1 are those applicable to dental surgeons.
Learning outcomes for ancillary groups/dental care professionals should be selected from
these, taking into account their specific roles in imaging.
5.1 Radiation protection professional entry requirements
In general the entry level to the profession of dentist/dental surgeon is EQF level 67 and
since the use of ionising radiation is an indispensable diagnostic tool and the dentist/dental
surgeon is almost always both acting as a referrer and a practitioner, the required radiation
protection KSC level upon entry to the overall profession should be the same as for entry to
the profession at EQF level 6.
Specialist dental and maxillofacial radiologists are radiologists and therefore their radiation
protection KSC should be at the same level as their entry into their profession at level EQF 7.
Other supporting medical and dental care professionals play varied roles and the radiation
protection KSC entry into their profession should be at the appropriate level specific to their
professional roles as specified elsewhere in these guidelines and they should have at least
the core radiation protection learning outcomes (see chapter two).
7
The reader is referred to section 1.6 for more information.
57
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
5.2 Continuous professional development in radiation
protection
Dentists/Dental surgeons must maintain and advance their radiation protection KSC through
appropriate radiation protection CPD activities essential to maintain good practice [3, 4, 5].
Other professionals working in dentistry should maintain and advance their radiation
protection KSC at the appropriate level of their professional roles within dentistry.
References
[1] Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September
2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications. Official Journal of the European
Union, L255/22 (30.9.2005).
[2] Council of the European Union. (2013). Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom laying down
basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to
ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom,
96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. Official Journal L-13 of
17.01.2014.
[3] The DentCPD Team (Cowpe J, Bullock A, et al) (2011) Harmonisation and
Standardisation of European Dental Schools’ Programmes of Continuing Professional
Development for Graduate Dentists – DentCPD. Journal of the European Higher
Education AreaA3.3-7 pg1-26.
[4] EC, 2004. Radiation Protection 136. European guidelines on radiation protection in
dental radiology. The safe use of radiographs in dental practice. Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities, 2004
.
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radioprotection/publication/doc/136_en.pdf (Last time
accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[5] EC, 2012. Radiation Protection 172 Cone Beam CT For Dental and Maxillofacial
Radiology, Evidence Based Guidelines. Directorate-General for Energy, Directorate D Nuclear Energy, Unit D4 - Radiation Protection, 2012 .
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/doc/publication/172.pdf
(Last
time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[6] Association for Dental Education in Europe and the DentEd III Thematic Network, 2004,
Profile and Competences for the European Dentist
,
http://dental.medic.upjs.sk/Profile_and_Competences_for_the_European_Dentist_englis
h.pdf (Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
58
Learning outcomes for dentists/dental surgeons
Table 5.1:
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for dentist/dental surgeons
Nature of Xradiation
K4. Describe how X-rays for diagnostic applications
are produced
Biological effects
of radiation
Interaction of Xrays with matter
K1. Be aware of the electromagnetic spectrum
K2. Understand the place of X-rays as ionising
radiation within the electromagnetic spectrum
K3. Explain background radiation
Production of
X-rays
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
S1. Create a context for risk/benefit discussions
K5. Explain how X-rays interact with matter
K6. Understand absorption and scatter of X-rays in
different materials, including tissues
S2. Select radiation protection measures which
use appropriate attenuation of X-rays
S3. Implement measures to avoid scatter and
unnecessary absorption by patients, staff and
the public
K7. Explain the biological effects of radiation
K8. Understand somatic and genetic effects of X-rays
on tissues
K9. Understand stochastic effects and radiationinduced tissue reactions
S4. Explain and communicate effectively the
nature and magnitude of radiation risk and
benefits, in order to obtain informed consent
59
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C1. Implement radiation protection based on a
sound understanding of the nature of ionising
radiation
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Radiation protection
Radiation dose and risk
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
K10. Define the units of radiation dose
S5. Take account of dose when establishing
K11. Understand the concepts of clinical radiation
imaging protocols
dose measurement
S6. Use exposure factors to optimise dose
K12. Describe the factors which influence radiation
S7. Take account of patient age when
exposure and dose
establishing imaging protocols
K13. Understand the influence of patient age on
radiation risk
K14. Understand DRLs and European or national dose
surveys
K15. Understand the level of radiation-related risk
associated with dental imaging of patients,
operators and the public
C2. Implement protection measures appropriate to
the level of exposure and risk
C3. Establish a framework for dose monitoring
C4. Compare patient doses with DRLs and take
appropriate action when necessary
K16. Understand the principles of radiation protection.
K17. Understand the need for justification, including
consent
K18. Describe referral guidelines for dental imaging
K19. Understand the role of other forms of clinical
examination and diagnosis, which do not involve
ionising radiation
K20. Understand when to refer to specialists in dental
and maxillofacial, or medical, radiologists
K21. Explain the ALARA principle
K22. Understand the relationship between radiation
dose and image quality
K23. Describe the practical steps available in dental
imaging to optimise patient dose
K24. Describe practical dose reduction strategies for
dental staff and the public, including the use of
shielding and dose monitoring
K25. Describe a QA programme for dental imaging
K26. Understand the clinical audit cycle as applied to
dental imaging
K27. Explain the concepts and tools for radiation
protection optimisation
C5. Lead the implementation of the evidencebased radiation protection programme
C6. Take responsibility for and implement
justification
C7. Take responsibility for and establish practices
to ensure optimisation of dental radiographic
exposures
C8. Take responsibility for and establish practices
to ensure dose limitation for dental staff and
the public
C9. Manage accidental/unintended exposures
C10. Take responsibility for and establish practices
to ensure implementation of a QA programme
C11. Review justification, optimisation and
limitation though clinical audit
C12. Implement the concepts and tools for
radiation protection optimisation
S8. Perform the justification process, taking into
account the risks and benefits
S9. Source referral guidelines for dental imaging
S10. Apply referral guidelines to specific clinical
situations
S11. Source advice on optimisation
S12. Apply measures to optimise exposure
consistent to diagnostic image production
S13. Develop an organisational policy to keep
doses to the personnel ALARA
S14. Apply measures to limit staff and public
exposure
S15. Investigate accidental/unintended exposure
S16. Source advice on QA programmes
S17. Detect and act on significant changes in
imaging performance
S18. Source advice and perform clinical audit
S19. Apply the concepts and tools for radiation
protection optimisation
60
Learning outcomes for dentists/dental surgeons
Interpretation
Equipment and techniques
Regulations and
medico-legal issues
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
K28. Name and explain the relevant, international,
European, national and local regulations relating
to dental imaging
K29. Understand the responsibilities and roles of
different professionals relating to use of X-rays in
dental imaging
S20. Comply with relevant regulations
S21. Seek advice from appropriate sources with
regard to regulations and compliance
C13. Consult with appropriate professionals to
achieve optimal radiation protection within the
regulations
K30. Describe the concept of the imaging ‘chain’, from
initiating X-ray exposure to displaying the image
K31. Explain the difference between 2D/3D imaging,
analogue/digital, and extraoral/intraoral imaging
K32. Describe how X-rays interact with image
detectors to produce an image
K33. Describe the different examination techniques in
dental and maxillofacial imaging
K34. Describe the construction and function of
equipment for dental imaging (intraoral and
extraoral)
K35. Understand the influences of chemical film
processing and digital post-acquisition processing
on the final image
K36. Understand the need to perform and record a
clinical evaluation of dental X-ray imaging
examinations
K37. Understand the principles of diagnostic imaging
K38. Describe the appearance of normal anatomical
structures in radiographs
K39. Describe the radiological appearances of
pathoses affecting the teeth and jaws
K40. Explain principles of projection and its influence
on image interpretation
S22. Select appropriate techniques and equipment
factors for acquisition and post-acquisition
processing
C14. Establish a procurement policy for equipment
which takes account of radiation protection
principles
C15. Establish and implement a preventative
maintenance programme for dental imaging
equipment
C16. Establish and implement an equipment
applications training programme for staff,
based on radiation protection considerations
S23. Recognise the appearance of normal
anatomy on dental imaging examinations,
including normal variants
S24. Recognise the signs of pathoses on dental
radiological examinations
S25. Interpret dental radiological images and
construct and record a report
C17. Implement practices that put optimal patient
care at the centre of dental imaging
61
Learning outcomes for radiographers
6 LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR RADIOGRAPHERS
In a modern health service the roles and tasks performed by radiographers are many and
varied. In order to address this, and to avoid confusion created by different professional and
national titles, a definition of a radiographer was developed and approved by the EFRS
General Assembly in 2010 [1].
Within the scope of this document the term ‘Radiographer’ will be used to refer to
professional roles in the fields of diagnostic imaging, NM, IR and radiation therapy.
Radiographers [1]:
 are the healthcare professionals responsible for performing safe and accurate procedures,
using a wide range of sophisticated technology within medical imaging, radiotherapy, NM,
and IR;
 are professionally accountable for the patients’ physical and psychosocial well-being, prior
to, during and following diagnostic and radiotherapy procedures;
 take an active role in justification and optimisation of medical imaging and radiotherapeutic procedures;
 are key persons in the radiation safety of patients and other persons in accordance with
the ALARA principle and relevant legislation.
In NM, the title NM Technologists (NMT) is recognised by EANM and the IAEA. NMTs
perform highly specialised work alongside other healthcare professionals to fulfil responsible
roles in patient care and management and radiation protection in diagnostic and therapeutic
procedures. They have non-imaging roles within the radiopharmacy and laboratory, and are
also involved with PET/CT-aided radiation therapy planning [2].
In Radiation Oncology practices, other than Therapeutic NM practices, the title Radiation
TherapisTs (RTTs) is recognised in the core curriculum published by ESTRO [3] and the
IAEA. RTTs are the professionals with direct responsibility for the daily administration of
radiotherapy to cancer patients. This encompasses the safe and accurate delivery of the
radiation dose prescribed, the clinical and the supportive care of the patient on a daily basis
throughout the treatment preparation, treatment and immediate post-treatment phases [4].
It is essential whilst carrying out clinical practice in diagnostic and therapy procedures, that
radiographers use current knowledge in order to secure, maintain or improve the health and
well-being of the patient [5].
While performing their role, radiographers also have a responsibility for radiation protection,
patient care and QA during medical imaging or radio-therapeutic procedures.
Radiographers act as the interface between patient and technology in medical imaging and
radiation therapy. They are the gatekeepers of patient and staff radiological protection,
having a key role in optimisation at the time of exposure to radiation [6].
Radiographers work in a diverse range of areas and each area demands its own specific
KSC. These areas include: radionuclide production, which involves cyclotrons and
generators; radio-labelling of compounds and living structures (e.g. cells); diagnostic imaging
(e.g. X-ray, PET, and NM); radiotherapy (teletherapy, brachytherapy and unsealed source
radionuclide therapy); and imaging arising from therapy procedures (e.g. IMRT).
The radiation protection learning outcomes for radiographers provides a set of core learning
outcomes together with specific sets of learning outcomes pertinent to diagnostic
radiography, NM and radiation therapy [2, 3, 7, 10].
63
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
6.1 Radiation protection professional entry requirements
According to the Tuning Template for Radiography, developed under the EU project HENRE
(Higher Education Network for Radiography in Europe) [7], the professional entry
requirements for radiographers should be equivalent to EQF level 6 [8]. Radiation protection
is a major subject for radiographers and should be at the same level as their professional
entry-level requirements in the EQF.
6.2 Continuous professional development in radiation
protection
Through their careers radiographers advance to EQF level 7 and in some cases even higher,
especially for sophisticated diagnostic and therapeutic radiological procedures and this
should be through CPD activities that enhance their KSC to higher levels [9]. Special
emphasis should be given to new diagnostic and therapeutic systems and the acquisition of
skills in the practical use of such systems.
References
[1]
EFRS, 2011. Definition of a Radiographer and recommendations for the use of the
professional name in Europe. EFRS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
http://www.efrs.eu/the-profession/ (Last time accessed was on the 24th of March
2013).
[2]
Waterstram-Rich K, Hogg P, Testanera G, Medvedec H, Dennan SE, Knapp W,
Thomas N, Hunt K, Pickett M, Scott A, Dillehay G (2011). Euro-American Discussion
Document on Entry-Level and Advanced Practice in Nuclear Medicine, J. Nucl. Med.
Technol., 39: 240-248.
http://tech.snmjournals.org/content/39/3/240.full.pdf+html (Last time accessed was on
the 24th of March 2013).
[3]
ESTRO, 2011. Recommended ESTRO Core Curriculum for RTTs (Radiation
TherapisTs). 3rd edition. ESTRO, Brussels, Belgium.
http://estro-education.org/courses/Documents/Recommended_Core_Curriculum%20
RadiationTherapisTs%20-%203rd%20edition%202011.pdf (last time accessed 24th of
March 2013.
[4]
IAEA, 2002. Safety Standards Series No. RS-G-1.5, Radiological Protection for
Medical Exposure to Ionizing Radiation, IAEA, Vienna, 2002,
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1117_scr.pdf
(Last
time
accessed was on the 24th of March 2013).
[5]
Royal College of Radiologist and the Society and College of Radiographers (2012)
Team working in clinical imaging.
[6]
HPC, 2009. Standards of Proficiency: Radiographers. Health Professions Council,
London, UK
http://www.hpc-uk.org/assets/documents/10000DBDStandards_of_Proficiency_
Radiographers.pdf (Last time accessed was on the 24th of March 2013).
64
Learning outcomes for radiographers
[7]
HENRE, 2008. Overview of the Tuning Template for Radiography in Europe. HENRE.
http://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/images/stories/template/Radiography_overvi
ew.pdf (Last time accessed was on the 24th of December 2012).
[8]
EC, 2008. European Commission: Explaining the European Qualifications Framework
for Lifelong Learning. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg
http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc44_en.htm
(Last
time
accessed was on the 24th of March 2013).
[9]
European Parliament and Council (2008) Recommendation 2008/C 111/01 on the
establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning. Official
Journal of the European Union 6.5.2008,
http://eur-Lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=oj:c:2008:111:0001:0007:en:pd
f (Last time accessed was on the 124h of March 2013).
[10] ICRP, 2010. Draft report for consultation 4811-3039-3350: Radiological protection
education and training for healthcare staff and students.
65
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Table 6.1:
Core learning outcomes in radiation protection for radiographers
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Core Learning outcomes in radiation protection
K1.
Explain physical principles of radiation
generation, interaction, modification and
protection
K2. Explain radiation physics, radiation hazards,
radiation biology and dosimetry
K3. Understand risk: benefit philosophy and
principles involved in all aspects of radiography
K4. Identify current national and international
radiation protection legislation and regulations
relating to staff, patients, carers and the wider
general public
K5. Explain the physics underpinning non-ionising
imaging techniques, including magnetic
resonance imaging and ultrasound along with
associated safety considerations
K6. Describe professional roles and responsibilities
in terms of aspects of justification and
optimisation
K7. Explain QA and QC practices to include:
legislation, regulations and guidelines, test
equipment and methodologies, programme
design and implementation and reporting to
ensure the provision of an effective, safe and
efficient service
K8. Understand occupational risks to health and
safety that may be encountered such as safe
moving and handling of patients and equipment
K9. Describe the importance of audit, research and
evidence-based practice to include: the stages
in the research process, research governance,
ethics, statistics and statistical analysis to
facilitate a deeper understanding of research
findings and clinical audit
K10. Identify the different determinants of radiation
risk perception; know the pit-falls of
communication on radiation risks
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
S1. Use the appropriate medical devices in an
effective, safe and efficient manner
S2. Use effective, safe and efficient radiation
protection methods in relation to staff,
patients and the general public applying
current safety standards, legislation,
guidelines and regulations
S3. Critically review the justification of a given
procedure and verify it in the light of
appropriateness guidelines and when in
doubt consult the responsible specialist
S4. Use and undertake clinical audits
S5. Identify the principles of evidence-based
practice and the research process
S6. Critically reflect on and evaluate one’s own
experience and practice
S7. Participate in CPD
S8. Recognise the complicated situation
pertaining to radiation protection regarding
scientific knowledge on the one side and
societal concern and personal emotions on
the other side
S9. Identify different image quality standards for
different techniques
S10. Apply the concepts and tools for radiation
protection optimisation
66
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C1. Practise effectively, accurately and safely
and within the guidance of legal, ethical and
professional frameworks
C2. Use the appropriate and correct form of
identification, address and treatment of the
patient (and any accompanying carer if
appropriate)
C3. Avoid unnecessary exposure and minimise
necessary exposure as part of optimisation
C4. Seek consent for any examination/treatment
to proceed
C5. Carry out work in a safe manner when using
ionising radiation, taking into account
current safety standards, guidelines and
regulations
C6. Participate in the process of creating and
guaranteeing maximum safety for the
patient, oneself and others during
examinations /treatments involving ionising
radiation and maintain the ALARA principle
C7. Refuse to accept or carry out a request or
referral which, in one’s professional opinion,
is dangerous or inadvisable
C8. Recognise the limitations to one’s own
scope of competence and seek advice and
guidance accordingly
C9. When taking decisions about care for
(individual) patients be able to make use of
relevant national and international
(scientific) insights, theories, concepts and
research results and integrate these
approaches into one’s own professional
actions (evidence-based practice)
Learning outcomes for radiographers
Core Learning outcomes in radiation protection
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
K15. Understand the particular protection aspects of
pregnant women (includes pregnant
radiographer/employee), carers and children
and knows how to take care of these persons
K16. Describe the risk to pregnant women and
foetus involved in radiotherapy, NM, and
diagnostic and IR
K17. Explain dose, quantities and units and their
relevance to own professional practice
K18. Explain the management of
accidental/unintended exposures
K19. Explain the concepts and tools for radiation
protection optimisation
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C10. Recognise the radiation hazards associated
with one’s work and take measures to
minimise them
C11. Monitor radiation exposure with the use of a
personal dosimeter
C12. Establish safe working conditions according
to the recommendations and the statutory
requirements of European, national, regional
legislation, where applicable
C13. Instruct other personnel participating in
matters relating to appropriate radiation
protection practices
C14. Carry out short-term and practice-oriented
research or clinical audit, either
independently or in collaboration with
colleagues, to improve the quality of care
C15. Participate in clinical audit and applied
research for the further development of
professional practice and its scientific
foundation
C16. Place radiation risks in relation to other risks
within a societal context
C17. Reflect on one's own radiation risk
perception
C18. Evaluate the results of routine QA tests
67
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Table 6.1.1:
K1.
K2.
K3.
K4.
Additional for radiology
K5.
K6.
Additional learning outcomes in radiation protection for radiology radiographers
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
Explain the relationship of exposure factors to
patient exposure
Understand how patient position affects image
quality and dose to radiosensitive organs
Understand the effect of filter type in diagnostic
X-ray systems
Understand the purpose and importance of
patient shielding
Understand post-processing possibilities for CR
and DR systems (filters, noise, magnification,
raw data manipulation)
Know recommendations and legal
requirements applying to medical, occupational,
and public exposure
S1. Perform the medical procedure with the
appropriate X-ray equipment suited and
optimised for the specific medical procedure
(adult, paediatric, projection possibilities,
adjustments for longer procedure time, etc.)
S2. Operate according to Good Medical Practice
in order to minimise overall fluoroscopy time
S3. Put into practice the basic principles of
preventing (unnecessary) exposure (time,
distance, shielding)
S4. Programme the use of beam filters in
mammography and conventional
radiography (proper use of additional
filtration)
S5. Use and record the integrated dose meter
(DAP) and checks the measured values
against DRLs and/or threshold doses for
deterministic effects in order to prevent
deleterious effects on patients whenever
possible
S6. Identify various types of patient shielding and
state the advantages and disadvantages of
each type
S7. Use the appropriate method of shielding for a
given radiographic procedure
S8. Identify difference between continuous and
pulsed fluoroscopy and use each mode
when appropriate
S9. Explain and communicate effectively the
nature and magnitude of radiation risk and
benefits, in order to obtain informed consent
C1. Take responsibility for use of proper
exposition parameters according to type of
modality and to radiological procedure
C2. Identify the appropriate image receptor that
will result in an optimum diagnostic image
with the minimum radiation exposure to the
patient
C3. Identify proper C-arm position regarding
occupational doses
C4. Discuss added and inherent filtration in
terms of the effect on patient exposure
C5. Compare dose measurements (DAP, DLP,
KAP, ESD, CTDI, glandular dose) readings
or equivalent to National or European DRLs
C6. Participate in the optimisation of all
parameters to create protocols regarding to
National or European DRL.
C7. Optimise radiological procedure to fit
pregnant women and use appropriate
paediatric protocols
C8. Take responsibility for choosing postprocessing tools and change exposure
parameters to obtain lower dose for clinical
diagnostic images
C9. Advise on the proper use of personal
protection.
C10. Optimise the use of radiology equipment
according to ALARA principles
68
Learning outcomes for radiographers
Table 6.1.2:
Additional learning outcomes in radiation protection for nuclear medicine technologists
Additional for nuclear medicine
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
K1. Explain the physical principles of how
radionuclides can be generated
K2. Explain how radionuclides can be physically
shielded (gamma, beta, positron)
K3. For the range of therapy and diagnostic
procedures, explain the biological basis on
which radiopharmaceutical localisation occurs
K4. Understand the risk-benefit philosophy as
applied to NM procedures
K5. State which QC tests should be applied to
which pieces of NM equipment. Explain why
and how, and state what their frequency should
be
K6. Explain the legal and clinical basis on which
NM procedures, both diagnostic and
therapeutic, are requested and justified
K7. Identify which non-ionising radiation diagnostic
examinations can be used as possible
alternatives to NM procedures
K8. Explain how doses for children can be varied
from those of adults
K9. Indicate which diagnostic examinations carry
radiation risk to breast feeding infants; indicate
the contingencies which might apply
K10. For diagnostic procedures, explain what
practical steps can be taken to minimise
radiation risk to radiosensitive organs (e.g.
thyroid)
K11. Understand interactions, pharmacology and
adverse reactions of drugs commonly
encountered within NM with a particular
emphasis on radiopharmaceuticals and X-ray
contrast agents
K12. Understand biological and physical half-lives of
the radiopharmaceuticals used for diagnostic
and therapeutic procedures
K13. Outline how developments in imaging
technology can be used to minimise dose, and
therefore risk, from diagnostic NM procedures
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
S1. Acquire and process images and data that
have clinical relevance within NM, observing
the principles of exposure optimisation and
dose management (e.g. PET/CT)
S2. Use devices which can be used to monitor
and also minimise radiation dose
S3. Use all relevant laboratory equipment
S4. Translate guidance and local rules into
practical working routines so as to minimise
dose to staff, patients and the public
S5. Be able to work very fast when handling
radionuclides but not at the expense of
incurring an adverse incident
S6. Be able to communicate effectively with
patients and carers so that diagnostic
examination requirements are met but not at
the expense of compromising the patient
experience
S7. Be able to discuss with the medical referrer
on whether the requested NM procedure is
appropriate in part or in whole
S8. Be aware of the fact that after a radioactive
injection a patient should be separated from
other patients
S9. Be able to prepare, manipulate and
administer radioisotopes, to patients,
assuring prior and post-administration
radioprotection measures
S10. Perform laboratory tests (e.g. GFR)
S11. Perform and interpret QC tests to determine
whether NM equipment is within
manufacturer specification
S12. Draw up the correct quantity of
radiopharmaceutical for administration
S13. Obtain patient consent for diagnostic
procedures; explain procedures to the
patient and respond appropriately to
questions
69
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C1. Take responsibility for conforming to
national regulations for all handling of
unsealed radioactive substances
C2. Take responsibility for conforming to local
standards and standard SOPs while
handling unsealed radioactive substances
C3. Take responsibility for handling unsealed
radioactive substances in a manner that
accidental / unintended exposure of oneself
as well as co-workers is avoided
C4. Comply with good manufacturing practice
when working within the radiopharmacy
C5. Take responsibility for interpreting QC tests
to determine whether NM equipment is
within manufacturer specification
C6. Take responsibility for drawing up the
correct quantity of radiopharmaceutical for
administration, taking into account DRLs
C7. Working within a devolved framework, justify
the diagnostic NM procedure
C8. Take responsibility for obtaining patients’
consent for diagnostic procedures; for
explaining procedures to the patient and
responding appropriately to their questions
C9. Take responsibility for the administration of
radiopharmaceuticals which are used for
diagnostic procedures
C10. Take responsibility for appropriate radiation
protection advice to patients undergoing
diagnostic NM procedures
C11. Take responsibility for providing appropriate
care for patients whilst at the same time
minimising personal radiation dose
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Additional for nuclear medicine
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
K14. Outline the role of the physicist and physician in
relation to adverse radiation incidents (e.g.
administration of a dose to the wrong patient)
K15. Outline the role of the physicist in minimising
dose to the environment and humans
K16. Explain the radiation protection principles, legal
requirements and practical solutions which can
be used to enhance safe storage, handling and
disposal of radioactive materials used within
NM
K17. State the range of additional radiation
protection requirements imposed for patients
who are to undergo NM therapy procedures
K18. For the radio-labelling of human products (e.g.
white cells) explain how good manufacturing
practice principles can be applied to minimise
the incidence of radiation accidents
K19. State how time, distance, shielding, monitoring
and audit can be used to minimise dose
received by staff, patients and public
K20. With good practice in mind, explain how a
radioactive spill should be dealt with
K21. Explain how doses to pregnant females can be
minimised when a diagnostic NM procedure
must be carried out
K22. Explain how a radionuclide dose should be
administered such that no, or very little, residue
is left within the dispensing device (e.g.
syringe)
K23. For hybrid procedures involving X-ray CT
explain the practical measures that should be
carried out to minimise dose to staff, patient
and members of the public
K24. Explain DNA damage
K25. Describe the cellular effects, mechanisms of
cell death
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
S14. Administer radiopharmaceuticals that are
used for diagnostic procedures
S15. Assist the physician with the administration
of radiopharmaceuticals used for therapeutic
procedures
S16. Offer appropriate radiation protection advice
to patients undergoing diagnostic NM
procedures
S17. Care for patients who require a high level of
care whilst at the same time minimising
personal radiation dose
S18. Organise clinical workflow so that radioactive
patients have minimal contact with at risk
individuals (e.g. pregnant females)
S19. Decontaminate radioactive spills in a safe
and efficient manner
C12. Take responsibility for performing the
diagnostic procedure to a suitable standard,
ensuring that no repeat examination is
required because of technical deficiency
C13. Supervise the clinical workflow such that the
risk of exposure to individuals (e.g. pregnant
females) from other patients is minimised
C14. Take responsibility for dealing with
radioactive spills in a safe and efficient
manner
70
Learning outcomes for radiographers
Table 6.1.3:
K1.
K2.
Additional for radiotherapy
K3.
K4.
K5.
K6.
K7.
K8.
K9.
K10.
K11.
K12.
K13.
K14.
K15.
Additional learning outcomes in radiation protection for radiotherapy technologists
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
Understand biomedical physics underpinning the scientific, effective,
safe and efficient use of medical devices used in radiation therapy,
including medical imaging devices used for tumour localisation and
treatment planning
Knowledge and understanding of the radiation physics underpinning
radiation therapy treatments and medical imaging examinations for
tumour localisation and treatment planning to include: nuclear
structure, radioactive decay, interaction with matter, electromagnetic
radiation, particle radiation, sources of radiation, tissue in
homogeneity, wedges, weigh factors, beam shape and properties
Knowledge and understanding of radiation protection underpinning
radiation therapy treatments and medical imaging examinations for
tumour localisation and treatment planning to include: radiation
hazards, radiation shielding, detection methods, current national and
international radiation protection legislation and regulations relating to
staff, patients and the general public
Knowledge and understanding of the radiobiology underpinning
radiation and cytotoxic therapy treatments, and medical imaging
examinations for tumour localisation and treatment planning to
include: cell biology, effects of ionising and non-ionising radiation,
radiation risks, radio sensitivity, side effects of radiation therapy
treatments
Explain DNA damage
Describe the cellular effects, mechanisms of cell death
Explain the cell survival curves
Describe the normal tissue, solid tumour and leukaemia systems
Explain the effects of oxygen, sensitizers and protectors
Explain the effect of time-dose fractionation, LET and different
radiation modalities and interaction between cytotoxic therapy and
radiation
Knowledge and understanding of Digital Reconstructed Radiograph
(DRR)
Knowledge and understanding of Beams Eye View (BEV)
Knowledge and understanding of Gross Target Volume (GTV), Clinical
Target Volume (CTV) and Planning Target Volume (PTV)
Knowledge and understanding of Organs at Risk (OAR)
Knowledge and understanding of Dose-Volume Histograms (DVH)
S1. Use medical devices in radiation
therapy, including medical
imaging devices, used for tumour
localisation and treatment
planning in a safe and effective
manner
S2. Analyse the properties of particle
and electromagnetic radiation
S3. Apply treatment planning
including 3D planning, virtual and
CT simulation and apply these
procedures to plan patients’
treatments
S4. Prepare treatment plans using
IMRT and other techniques such
as stereotactic, particle and IGRT
S5. Define the target and OAR using
ICRU terminology
S6. Describe how DVHs are created
and used to evaluate plans
S7. Relate the influence of changing
planning parameters on DVHs
S8. Use radiation protection methods
relating to staff, patients and the
general public, taking into account
current safety standards,
guidelines and regulations
S9. Justify and optimise all
procedures effectively
S10. Recognise OAR on medical
images for tumour localisation and
treatment planning
S11. Recognise the signs and
symptoms associated with
treatment in different sites
71
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C1. Able to take into account, from the
perspective of the patient, the technical
and clinical aspects of the treatment
while it is being conducted
C2. Able to select and argue for a suitable
treatment on the basis of one’s own
analysis of a question and/or indication,
give an account of this and advise
accordingly
C3. Work in an independent, methodical and
evidence-based manner in terms of
quality, complete the treatment and
report accordingly
C4. Able to work in a safe manner when
carrying out treatments with ionising
radiation, taking into account current
safety standards, guidelines and
regulations
C5. Critically evaluate the dose distribution
and DVHs
C6. Optimise and evaluate the plan options
C7. Assess the daily physical and
psychological status of the patient prior
to treatment
C8. Record all side effects and advise the
patient on their management in
accordance with department protocol
C9. Calculate/check monitor units and
treatment times
C10. Check treatment prescription
calculations for accuracy and alert
clinician of any discrepancies
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Additional for radiotherapy
K16.
K17.
K18.
K19.
K20.
K21.
K22.
K23.
K24.
K25.
K26.
K27.
K28.
K29.
Explain the collimating systems
Describe Brachytherapy systems
Explain absorbed dose
Define target-absorbed dose specification in external RT
Define target-absorbed dose specification in brachytherapy
Illustrate algorithms for 3D dose calculations
Explain applications of conformal RT, IMRT, IGRT, stereotactic RT
and particle therapy
Describe radiation weighting factor
Explain the risk of induction of secondary tumours
Explain equivalent dose – tissue weighting factor
Knowledge and understanding of the scientific basis of the range of
radiation therapy techniques and medical imaging techniques for
tumour localisation and treatment planning across the range of
technology / equipment used along with the operational and
maintenance, for professional purposes, so that equipment can be
operated at the highest level of understanding
Knowledge and understanding of positioning, immobilisation and
beam shielding devices used in radiation therapy
Knowledge and understanding of radiation therapy verification
systems
Knowledge and understanding related to the technical appraisal of
diagnostic images for tumour localisation and treatment planning, to
facilitate judgements on acceptability and quality
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
S12. Identify the side effects
associated with the individual
treatment
S13. Define the effects of concomitant
treatment
S14. Analyse stochastic and
deterministic effects
S15. Define the parameters routinely
used
S16. Recognise the critical structures
on the verification images
S17. Identify the imaging protocol
S18. Identify the daily entrance and exit
dose and dose level of critical
organs
S19. Be familiar with reporting systems
and reporting protocols
S20. Describe the radiation hazards
and how they are managed
S21. Effective, safe and efficient use of
positioning, immobilisation and
beam shielding devices used in
radiation therapy
S22. Use radiation therapy verification
systems safely, effectively and
efficiently
S23. Perform, record and analyse QC
activities
S24. Approach occupational risks to
health and safety such as safe
moving and handling of patients
and equipment in a safe and
effective manner
C11. Check decay tables/exposure rates for
Cobalt units are updated
C12. Apply safety procedures when using
brachytherapy sources
C13. Assess patients undergoing external
beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy
and refer them to the radiation
oncologist or other health professional
as appropriate
C14. Assess the practical problems
associated with machine and
accessory equipment limitations and
respond accordingly
C15. Optimise and evaluate plan options
C16. Carry out manual calculations
C17. Engage in QA and follow safety
policies
C18. Check if all parameters, devices and
settings are correct
C19. Carry out in vivo dosimetry
C20. Evaluate results, take corrective action
as per protocol and report any
inconsistency
C21. Analyse and record the results and
report any deviations
C22. Report incidents and near incidents to
the multidisciplinary team
C23. Examine any incident or near incident
and how they can be prevented in the
future
C24. Routinely inspect the area to ensure
that radiation protection measures are
in place and functional
72
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for medical physicists/ medical physics experts
7 LEARNING OUTCOMES IN RADIATION PROTECTION
FOR MEDICAL PHYSICISTS/ MEDICAL PHYSICS
EXPERTS
The KSC requirements in radiation protection for the medical physicist (MP) working with
ionising radiation and the medical physics expert (MPE) are given in the ‘Guidelines on the
Medical Physics Expert’ published by the EC as part of the radiation protection series [1].
These guidelines are based on the provisions regarding the MPE to be found in the revised
Euratom BSS [2].
Member States shall ensure that in medical radiological practices, a medical physics expert
is appropriately involved, the level of involvement being commensurate with the radiological
risk posed by the practice. In particular:
I.
in radiotherapeutic practices other than standardized therapeutic nuclear medicine
practices, a medical physics expert shall be closely involved;
II.
in standardized therapeutical nuclear medicine practices as well as in radiodiagnostic
and interventional radiology practices, involving high doses as referred to in Article
60(1)(c), a medical physics expert shall be involved;
III.
for other medical radiological practices not covered by (a) and (b), a medical physics
expert shall be involved, as appropriate, for consultation and advice on matters
relating to radiation protection concerning medical exposure.’
Within the health-care environment, the MPE should act or give specialist advice on matters
relating to radiation physics as applied to medical exposure and non-medical imaging
exposure using medical equipment. Depending on the medical radiological practice, the MPE
takes responsibility for dosimetry, including physical measurements for evaluation of the
dose delivered to the patient and other individuals subject to medical exposure, gives advice
on medical radiological equipment, and contributes, in particular, to the following:
‘(a) optimization of the radiation protection of patients and other individuals subjected to
medical exposure, including the application and use of diagnostic reference levels;
(b) the definition and performance of quality assurance of the medical radiological
equipment;
(c) acceptance testing of medical radiological equipment;
(d) the preparation of technical specifications for medical radiological equipment and
installation design;
(e) the surveillance of the medical radiological installations;
(f) the analysis of events involving, or potentially involving, accidental or unintended
medical exposures;
(g) the selection of equipment required to perform radiation protection measurements;
(h) the training of practitioners and other staff in relevant aspects of radiation protection:
The following mission statement from the ‘Guidelines on the MPE’ document aims to make
the role of the MP/MPE more understandable to decision-makers and managers of
healthcare institutions and provide direction for those in other roles:
“Medical Physics Experts will contribute to maintaining and improving the quality, safety and
cost-effectiveness of healthcare services through patient-oriented activities requiring expert
action, involvement or advice regarding the specification, selection, acceptance testing,
commissioning, quality assurance/control and optimised clinical use of medical radiological
73
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
devices and regarding patient risks from associated ionising radiations including radiation
protection and the prevention of unintended or accidental exposures; all activities will be
based on current best evidence or own scientific research when the available evidence is not
sufficient. The scope includes risks to volunteers in biomedical research, carers and
comforters” [1].
The key activities of the MP/MPE are: scientific problem-solving, dosimetry measurements,
patient safety/risk management (including volunteers in biomedical research, carers,
comforters and persons subjected to non-medical imaging exposure), occupational and
public safety/risk management (when there is an impact on medical exposure or personal
safety), clinical medical device management, clinical involvement, development of service
quality and cost-effectiveness, expert consultancy, education of healthcare professionals
(including medical physics trainees), health technology assessment (HTA) and innovation.
These key activities are defined and elaborated in the ‘Guidelines on the Medical Physics
Expert’ [1].
Owing to the special and wide-ranging involvement of MP/MPE in radiation protection the
KSC inventory for these professionals is very extensive and cannot be reproduced here; the
reader should refer to the aforementioned guidelines; the KSC for MP/MPE in the ‘Guidelines
on the Medical Physics Expert’ are subdivided into:
a)
a Core KSC inventory common to all three specialties of medical physics, which involve
ionising radiation, namely diagnostic radiology, IR, NM and radiation oncology,
b)
three additional KSC inventories each of which consist of the KSC specific to one of the
above three specialties.
Further guidance can be found here [3-9].
7.1 Radiation protection professional entry requirements
The entry level certification requirement in radiation protection for MPs in a given specialty is
EQF level 7 in all Core KSC, and the KSC specific to that particular specialty8 [1].
7.2 Continuous professional development in radiation
protection
In the case of MPs, the term CPD has a special meaning which is advanced education,
training and experience for the achievement of MPE status in their particular specialty of
medical physics. The certification requirement in radiation protection for achievement of MPE
status in a given specialty of medical physics is an EQF Level 8 in all the Core KSC and the
KSC specific to that specialty [1].
References
[1]
8
EC, 2014, RP174. Guidelines on Medical Physics Expert. Directorate-General Energy,
Luxembourg (in Press).
The reader is referred to section 1.6 for more information.
74
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for medical physicists/ medical physics experts
[2]
Council of the European Union. (2013). Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom laying down
basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to
ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom,
96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. Official Journal L-13 of
17.01.2014.
[3]
Jacob Geleijns, Éamann Breatnach, Alfonso Calzado Cantera, John Damilakis, Philip
Dendy, Anthony Evans, Keith Faulkner, Renato Padovani, Wil Van Der Putten, Lothar
Schad, Ronnie Wirestam, Teresa Eudaldo, “Core Curriculum for Medical Physicists in
Radiology, Recommendations from an EFOMP/ESR Working Group”, June 2011,
http://www.efomp.org/images/docs/policy/CC%20radiology%20physics%20JUN_%202
011.pdf (Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[4]
IAEA, 2010, Training Course Series No. 47. Clinical Training of Medical Physicists
specialising in Diagnostic Radiology. IAEA, Vienna,
http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/8574/Clinical-Training-of-MedicalPhysicists-Specializing-in-Diagnostic-Radiology (Last time accessed was on the 14th of
December 2012).
[5]
Alberto Del Guerra, Manuel Bardies, Nicola Belcari, Carmel J. Caruana, Stelios
Christofides, Paola Erba, Cesare Gori, Michael Lassmann, Markus Nowak Lonsdale,
Bernhard Sattler, Wendy Waddington, “Curriculum for education and training of
Medical Physicists in Nuclear Medicine. Recommendations from the EANM Physics
Committee, the EANM Dosimetry Committee and EFOMP”, Physica Medica (2012),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2012.06.004 (Last time accessed was on the 14th of
December 2012).
[6]
IAEA,2011, Training Course Series No. 50. Clinical Training of Medical Physicists
specialising in Nuclear Medicine. IAEA, Vienna,
http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/8656/Clinical-Training-of-MedicalPhysicists-Specializing-in-Nuclear-Medicine (Last time accessed was on the 14th of
December 2012).
[7]
Eriksen JG, et al., “The updated ESTRO core curricula 2011 for clinicians, medical
physicists and RTTs in radiotherapy/radiation oncology”, Radiotherapy and Oncology
2012 Apr;103(1):103-8,
http://www.estro-education.org/courses/Documents/The%20updated%20ESTRO%20
core%20curricula%202011%20for%20clinicians,%20medical%20physicists%20and%2
0RTTs.pdf (Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[8]
Guidelines for Education and Training of Medical Physicists in Radiotherapy (updated
2nd edition. Feb.2011),
http://www.estro-education.org/europeantraining/Documents/2nd%20finalised%20
edition%20European%20CC%20Physics_16%2002%202011.pdf (Last time accessed
was on the 14th of December 2012).
[9]
IAEA, 2009, Training Course Series No. 37. Clinical Training of Medical Physicists
Specialising in Radiation Oncology. IAEA, Vienna,
http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/8222/Clinical-Training-of-MedicalPhysicists-Specializing-in-Radiation-Oncology (Last time accessed was on the 14th of
December 2012).
75
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Table 7.1:
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for medical physicists/medical physics experts
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
For a comprehensive list of learning outcomes in radiation protection for medical physicists/medical physics experts, please refer to
the EC’s publication RP174, ‘Guidelines on Medical Physics Expert’, Directorate-General Energy, Luxembourg (in Press).
76
Learning outcomes for nurses and other healthcare workers not directly involved in the
use of ionising radiation
8 LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR NURSES AND OTHER
HEALTHCARE WORKERS NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN
THE USE OF IONISING RADIATION
It is essential that nurses and other healthcare workers not directly involved in the use of
ionising radiation who work within a clinical area where ionising radiation is used are aware
of the potential radiogenic risk.
When a nurse or other healthcare worker has any concerns relating to radiation protection,
which are of an occupational nature, these should be referred to the radiation protection
officer who would, if necessary, liaise with the RPE. If the concerns relate to patient
protection they should be referred to the MPE.
Education and training in radiation protection for all such workers is essential [1]. This should
be described in their professional charter or profile. The appropriate learning outcomes for
these workers are given in table 8.1.
8.1 Radiation protection professional entry requirements
Radiation protection education and training is a minor subject for general ward nurses and
should be part of their professional training. Such training should cover the core radiation
protection education and training as specified in chapter two.
Nurses working in areas where ionising radiation is used should be specifically educated and
trained in radiation protection at the level required for their duties in such areas. In most
cases EQF level 5 is sufficient, but in some cases (e.g. IR and radiotherapy) this must be
EQF level 69.
For other healthcare workers working in areas where ionising radiation is used, their radiation
protection KSC should be at the level appropriate to their roles and duties within the specific
areas where they work.
8.2 Continuous professional development in radiation
protection
Nurses and other healthcare workers must maintain and advance their KSC through
appropriate CPD activities essential for maintaining good practice.
References
[1]
9
ICRP, 2009. Education and Training in Radiological Protection for Diagnostic and
Interventional Procedures. ICRP Publication 113. Ann. ICRP 39 (5).
The reader is referred to section 1.6 for more information.
77
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
Table 8.1:
Learning outcomes in radiation protection for nurses and other healthcare workers
Radiation protection
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
K1. Know the basic physical principles of radiation
generation, interaction, modification and
protection
K2. Basic radiation physics, radiation hazards,
radiation biology and dose quantities and units
K3. Know the dose distribution around the patient
K4. Current national and international radiation
protection legislation and regulations relating to
workers
K5. Occupational risks, health and safety that may be
encountered
K6. List and explain radiation protection aspects with
respect to staff
K7. Radiation risks to the unborn child during
pregnancy
K8. Radiation risks to the breastfeeding infant
K9. Basic principles of shielding and its relation to
minimising occupational risks
K10. Knowledge about the particular protection of body
areas such as the gonads, eye lenses and thyroid
gland
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
S1. Follow the instructions of radiation
C1. Recognise the radiation hazards associated
professionals
with one’s work and take measures to
S2. Put into practice the basic principles of
minimise them
preventing unnecessary exposure (time,
C2. Recognise the limits of one’s own knowledge
distance, shielding)
on radiation protection
S3. Be aware of issues relating to continual care
C3. Supervise untrained (re. radiation protection)
of patients who undergo NM or brachytherapy
colleagues (nurses and other health care
procedures
workers) and prevent them from entering the
S4. Observe the rules relating to distance when
controlled areas while radiation is active
caring for patients undergoing NM,
fluoroscopy or brachytherapy procedures
78
Learning outcomes for maintenance engineers and maintenance technicians
9 LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR MAINTENANCE
ENGINEERS AND MAINTENANCE TECHNICIANS
Preventive Maintenance (PM) is a necessary activity to ensure radiological equipment
functions according to its specifications [1]. PM is carried out by engineers, or technicians,
specifically trained to maintain and repair radiological equipment.
Whenever new radiological equipment is introduced in a healthcare facility, specific training
should be provided by the manufacturer’s engineers before the equipment is put into clinical
use [2]. This training should be part of the commissioning process of the new radiological
system. It is important to consider the manufacturer’s responsibility to make complete and
comprehensible maintenance and repair instructions available in the local language.
The background education and training of maintenance engineers and technicians is usually
electrical or mechanical engineering without any radiation protection education and training
content. Their KSC in radiological equipment maintenance and repair is acquired through the
radiological equipment manufacturer’s dedicated maintenance and repair training courses,
specific to the type and model of the radiological equipment. These courses take place at the
manufacturer’s facilities and include theoretical and practical training on the maintenance
and repair of the equipment without any specific emphasis on staff or patient radiation
protection.
To safeguard the safety of the equipment users and patients after equipment maintenance, it
is very important for maintenance engineers and technicians to follow a written procedure of
handing over the equipment for clinical use after each preventive maintenance or repair. This
procedure should be agreed together with the MPE and the hospital management.
The general radiation protection education and training of radiological equipment
maintenance engineers and technicians should cover the core learning outcomes for
radiation protection, as outlined in table 2.2. Furthermore, additional radiation protection
education and training is required according to the complexity of the radiological equipment
for which the maintenance engineers and technicians are responsible for maintaining and
repairing, and they should be, at least, at EQF level 5. They should also include the
additional KSC outlined in table 9.1.
9.1 Radiation protection professional entry requirements
The radiation protection professional entry requirements for maintenance engineers and
technicians should be equivalent to EQF10 level 5, and should consist of at least the core
learning outcomes from chapter two. Additional learning outcomes are necessary for the
specific radiological equipment for which they are responsible for maintaining and repairing.
9.2 Continuous professional development in radiation
protection
Maintenance engineers and technicians must maintain and advance their KSC through
appropriate CPD activities, which are essential to maintain the proper functioning of the
radiological equipment, which they are responsible for maintaining and repairing.
10
The reader is referred to section 1.6 for more information.
79
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
References
[1]
WHO, 2011. WHO Medical device technical series, “Medical equipment maintenance
programme overview”, WHO, Geneva, 2011.
[2]
EC, 2000, RP 116. Guidelines on Education and Training in Radiation Protection for
Medical Exposures. Directorate-General Environment, Luxembourg.
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/doc/publication/116.pdf
(Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
80
Learning outcomes for maintenance engineers and maintenance technicians
Table 9.1:
Additional learning outcomes in radiation protection for maintenance engineers and maintenance technicians
Radiation protection
Knowledge
(facts, principles, theories, practices)
K1. Explain the basic physical principles of radiation
generation, interaction with matter and
modification
K2. Explain occupational risks, health and safety that
may be encountered and associated protection
measures
K3. Explain basic principles of shielding and its
relation to minimising occupational risks
K4. Describe the equipment handover procedure
Skills
(cognitive and practical)
S1. Apply the basic principles of preventing
unnecessary exposure (time, distance,
shielding) in their practice
S2. Apply the equipment handover procedure
81
Competence
(responsibility and autonomy)
C1. Take responsibility for recognition of the
radiation hazards associated with one’s work
and take measures to minimise them
C2. Recognise the limits of one’s own knowledge
on radiation protection and seek advice from
the RPE
C3. Coordinate the equipment hand over
procedure
Accreditation, certification and recognition of medical education and training in radiation
protection
10 ACCREDITATION, CERTIFICATION AND
RECOGNITION OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND
TRAINING IN RADIATION PROTECTION
There is a strong demand for new education and training courses in medical radiation
protection due to the rapid development of medical techniques based on ionising radiation,
growth of hospitals and the continuous need to produce competent health professionals.
However, external assessment of the quality of education or training provision is needed [1].
Accreditation is a process by which a recognised body assesses and recognises that
education and/or training in medical radiation protection provided by an institution meets
acceptable levels of quality. There are two parties involved in this process: the institution that
provides education and training and an external organisation, which performs the external
assessment and awards accreditation as a result of positive evaluation.
Recognition is a process by which a national authority recognises the professional
equivalence of foreign higher education diplomas or other evidence of formal qualifications
awarded upon the completion of a course at a higher education institution.
Certification is a process that recognises an individual medical professional who has
demonstrated special knowledge and expertise in medical radiation protection, and has
successfully completed the education or training provided by an accredited organisation.
Medical personnel certified in radiation protection bring important benefits to their patients
and themselves. Because of their special education and training, certified medical personnel
demonstrate knowledge and confidence in the field of medical radiation protection, enabling
them to justify and optimise medical procedures and provide better patient care. Certification
should not be issued for an unlimited period of time. Recertification is required after a specific
time span, usually three to five years. Recertification programmes should be based on CPD
models.
Accreditation should be based upon established standards and guidelines [2]. The minimum
requirements for accreditation of a training programme should take into account aspects
related to admission policy, facilities, staff, certification programmes, educational material,
teaching methods, administration and archives, course updates and course evaluation.
Training in medical radiation protection should be provided in clinical radiation facilities.
Hands-on training can be very effective because it provides real-world experience by
allowing the trainee to carry out measurements and understand radiation protection
techniques, rather than just hear about them. All staff should possess appropriate
qualifications and experience in medical radiation protection.
Specifically, in order to plan and provide effective education and training, education providers
should have the necessary knowledge and skills in the radiation protection aspects of the
procedures carried out by the practitioners involved in the training activity [1]. Training in
medical radiation protection is very challenging, considering the rapid technological
developments and the complex science involved in modern imaging procedures. For this
reason, the development of ‘train-the-trainer’ schemes is of crucial importance to provide the
best possible opportunities to MPs and other experts involved in medical radiation protection
training.
Scientific programme contents and educational material should be reviewed periodically to
ensure that they remain up-to-date. Course evaluation is usually performed at the end of a
course or semester using a questionnaire. Course participants answer questions related to
several aspects of the educational process such as educational material, course duration
and teaching effectiveness. An accreditation decision should be made following a periodic
on-site evaluation by a team of experts in the field of medical radiation protection.
83
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
Certification is usually based on examinations. Several evaluation methods can be
considered for examining knowledge in medical radiation protection, including written
examinations, oral examinations and research projects. Recertification programmes ensure
that certified professionals maintain, develop or improve KSC in the area of medical radiation
protection for which they are certified.
There are several initiatives and tools developed by the EC to facilitate the accreditation,
certification, validation and recognition of knowledge, as well as to promote the mobility of
students, educators and researchers. The EQF for LLL is a tool based on learning outcomes
and aims to relate national qualifications frameworks to a common European reference
framework [3]. The European Credit Transfer and accumulation System (ECTS) is a grading
system developed to facilitate the transfer of students. One year of a study programme is
equivalent to 60 credits. The ECTS is compatible with the EQF and can help medical
radiation protection schools to implement QA procedures [4]. The European Credit system
for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) is a system for credit accumulation and
transfer for vocational education and training [5]. The ECVET credit system allows individuals
to obtain a vocational certificate by obtaining units at the most appropriate pace. A difference
between the ECTS and ECVET credit systems is that the ECVET credit system is based on
learning outcomes, whereas ECTS is based on time spent on an educational activity.
Medical radiation protection education and training courses must be accredited by an
external, independent accreditation body with the involvement and representation of the
relevant specialists. In accordance with the EQF, guidelines presented in the current
document list the required learning objectives in terms of knowledge, skills and competences
in table format. Information is provided separately for each medical profession working with
ionising radiation. This information can be used by accreditation bodies to evaluate the
content of education and training programmes in medical radiation protection offered by
organisations such as professional and scientific societies, radiation protection competent
authorities, etc. The ECTS can be used not only for the main higher education degrees, but
also for LLL activities. The appendix to this section gives an example of how to calculate
indicative ECTS using the KSC for radiographers. When using the ECTS for continuing
education, the same principles for credit award, accumulation and transfer apply as for
credits allocated to higher education programmes [4].
References
[1]
ICRP, 2009. Education and Training in Radiological Protection for Diagnostic and
Interventional Procedures. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)
Publication 113, Ann ICRP (2009) 39(5).
[2]
Accreditation and quality assurance in vocational education and training. Selected
European approaches. European Centre for the development of vocational training,
CEDEFOP, Luxembourg, 2009.
[3]
Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on
the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning
(Official Journal C 111, 6.5.2008).
[4]
ECTS Users’ Guide. European Communities, Brussels, 2009.
[5]
The European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET). Get to
know ECVET better. Questions and Answers. European Commission, 2011.
84
Appendix: Syllabus and ECTS model for radiation protection education and training
APPENDIX: SYLLABUS AND ECTS MODEL FOR
RADIATION PROTECTION EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Introduction
In 1999, several European Countries (currently 41) signed the Bologna Declaration, which
aims to create the European Higher Education Area (EHAE), by harmonising academic
degrees and QA standards throughout Europe [1].
To that end, a credit system (ECTS) was introduced [2]. ECTS makes teaching and learning
in higher education more transparent, facilitates the recognition of studies, and allows for the
transfer of learning experiences between different institutions. It also serves curriculum
design and QA.
An academic year corresponds to 60 ECTS, and the first educational cycle (Bachelor level)
can vary from 180 to 240 ECTS. The second cycle (Master level) can vary from 90 to 120
ECTS and the third cycle (PhD level) can vary from 180 to 240 ECTS. These three cycles
correspond respectively to level 6, 7 and 8 of the European LLL EQF [3].
One ECTS represents a study workload between 25 and 30 hours with all study activities
included (e.g.: self-study, attending classes, exams, skills lab, etc.).
ECTS for education and training
In order to assist with the calculation of the corresponding number of ECTS from the KSC
specified for each of the professions considered in this document, the KSC for radiographers
have been used as an example.
Radiation protection education and training is included in all radiographer education
programmes, but there is still lack of harmonisation, not only in terms of syllabus, topic or
workload, but also in terms of the different education models used to obtain the KSC in
radiation protection, as these can be obtained through several educational and pedagogical
methods.
There is no unambiguous or simple tool to convert curriculum items into credits. To solve
this, the European Commission developed an ECTS users’ guide [2] that gives orientation on
the concept and the way to implement the ECTS. In addition, practical information about this
guide was published by Richard de Lavigne [4], Counsellor for ECTS and the Diploma
Supplement for the EC.
In order to build their new curriculum according to the Bologna Process, using the
methodology proposed by Karjalainen A. et al [5] and the credit calculator excel sheet,
provided by the same author, a number of Radiographers’ higher educational institutes (HEI)
surveyed their students and academics regarding the necessary workload for each syllabus
or module.
Nevertheless, each model for determining workload is always hypothetical and can only be
verified during its practical implementation.
To build this example, Radiographers’ HEI were asked about the amount of ECTS dedicated
specifically to radiation protection.
85
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
The following recommendation represents average values after eliminating 15% of the lowest
and highest values:

20 ECTS for radiation protection education and training for Radiography;

Total workload in hours: 540;

Contact hours: 240 (140 theoretical + 100 practical);

Independent study hours: 300 (1.25 hours of personal study for each contact hour).
Independent of the model used by the HEI, the students should always be assessed in order
to assure that the KSC in radiation protection education and training is obtained.
Only as a suggestion (because the HEI are autonomous in defining their curricula), the
recommended syllabuses are given in Table A1 matched with the topics in Table 2.1.
ECTS for continuous professional development
CPD programmes should ideally be developed and organised using ECTS methodology for
credit award, not only because it would facilitate the recognition process (at national and
international level), but also because it would allow the creation of a quantitative indicator of
what health professionals dealing with ionising radiation should obtain during their LLL
activities [3].
References
[1]
Bologna declaration of June 1999, http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00Main_doc/990719BOLOGNA_DECLARATION.PDF (Last time accessed was on the
14th of December 2012).
[2]
ECTS users’ guide, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities, 2009, ISBN: 978-92-79-09728-7, http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelonglearning-policy/doc/ects/guide_en.pdf (Last time accessed was on the 14th of
December 2012).
[3]
European Parliament and Council (2008) Recommendation 2008/C 111/01 on the
establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning. Official
Journal of the European Union 6.5.2008.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=oj:c:2008:111:0001:0007:en:pdf
(Last time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
[4]
Richard de Lavigne, ECTS credits and methods of credit Allocation, http://ci.univlille1.fr/english_version/pdf/credit_allocation.pdf (Last time accessed was on the 14th of
December 2012).
[5]
Karjalainen A. et al., A Practical Guide for Teachers and Curriculum Designers: Give
me time to think: determining student workload in higher education, Oulu University
Press, 2008, ISBN 978-951-42-8782-4, http://www.oulu.fi/w5w/tyokalut/GET2.pdf (Last
time accessed was on the 14th of December 2012).
86
Appendix: Syllabus and ECTS model for radiation protection education and training
Table A1:
Recommended syllabus and ECTS for radiation protection education and training for radiographers
Syllabus
Radiation protection and safety
Quality control and optimisation in medical
imaging and radiotherapy
Radiobiology
Radiation physics and dosimetry
Nuclear and atomic physics
ECTS
5
5
3
4
3
From Table 2.1
Topic number
TOPIC
9
General principles of radiation protection
10
Operational radiation protection
11
Particular patient radiation protection aspects
12
Particular staff radiation protection aspects
16
National regulations and international standards
19
Justification of imaging examinations
4
Physical characteristics of X-ray systems
5
Fundamentals of radiation detection
15
Quality control and quality assurance in radiation protection
6
Fundamentals of radiobiology, biological effects of radiation
7
Risks of cancer and hereditary disease and effective dose
8
Risks of deterministic effects
14
Risks from foetal exposure to ionising radiation
3
Radiological quantities and units
13
Typical doses from diagnostic procedures
17
Dose management of pregnant patients
18
Dose management of pregnant staff
1
Atomic structure, X-ray production and interaction of radiation
2
Nuclear structure and radioactivity
87
Education and training resources
11 EDUCATION AND TRAINING RESOURCES
When searching the internet hundreds of teaching resources on radiation protection can be
found; however, it is not clear whether these resources are accurate and reliable. A list of
radiation protection education and training resources verified by the contributors to these
guidelines is provided below.
Most of these resources can be downloaded for free. The resources listed are not exhaustive
and were available at the time of print.
11.1
European Commission Radiation Protection
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection_en.htm
(Last accessed on the 12th of December 2012).
This is the official website of the EC where all the relevant European radiation protection
legislation can be found, as well as a large number of relevant guideline documents.
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/medical/applications_en.htm
accessed on the 12th of December 2012).
(Last
Recently a ‘medical applications’ web page was introduced, which is more specific to
radiation protection for medical applications. Relevant conferences and workshops are
announced, as well as a plethora of other relevant information.
11.2
IAEA Radiation Protection of Patients
https://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/index.htm
December 2012).
(Last
accessed
on
the
12th
of
This is a Web page on the official website of the IAEA where information for healthcare
professionals, patients and the public can be found on the Radiation Protection Of Patients
(RPOP). It provides educational and training material, recent publications and other relevant
information. This can be regarded as a one-stop shop for the radiation protection of patients.
11.3
Image Wisely
http://www.imagewisely.org/About-Us (Last accessed on the 12th of December 2012).
The American College of Radiology (ACR) and the Radiological Society of North America
(RSNA) formed a Joint Task Force on Adult Radiation Protection to address concerns about
the surge of public exposure to ionising radiation from medical imaging. The Joint Task Force
collaborated with the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the
American Society of Radiologic Technologists (ASRT) to create the Image Wisely campaign
with the objective of lowering the amount of radiation used in medically necessary imaging
studies and eliminating unnecessary procedures.
Image Wisely offers resources and information to radiologists, MPs, other imaging
practitioners, and patients.
89
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
11.4
Image Gently
http://www.pedrad.org/associations/5364/ig/ (Last accessed on the 12th of December 2012).
The Image Gently campaign is an initiative of the Alliance for Radiation Safety in Paediatric
Imaging. The campaign’s goal is to change practice by increasing awareness of the
opportunities to promote radiation protection in the imaging of children. It provides
educational and training material, recent publications and other relevant information.
11.5
International Commission on Radiological Protection
(ICRP)
http://www.icrp.org/ (Last accessed on the 12th of December 2012).
The work of the ICRP helps to prevent cancer and other diseases and effects associated
with exposure to ionising radiation, and to protect the environment.
The ICRP publish reports on all aspects of radiological protection. Most address a particular
area within radiological protection, but a few publications, the so-called fundamental
recommendations, describe the overall system of radiological protection. The International
System of Radiological Protection has been developed by ICRP based on (i) the current
understanding of the science of radiation exposures and effects and (ii) value judgements.
These value judgements take into account societal expectations, ethics, and experience
gained in the application of the system.
11.6
International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA)
http://www.iradiation protectiona.net/ (Last accessed on the 12th of December 2012).
IRPA is recognised by its members, stakeholders and the public as the international voice of
the radiation protection profession in the enhancement of radiation protection culture and
practice worldwide
11.7
Optimization of Radiation protection for Medical Staff
(ORAMED)
http://www.oramed-fp7.eu/en (Last accessed on the 12th of December 2012).
ORAMED (Optimization of RAdiation protection for MEDical staff) aims at the development of
methodologies for better assessing and reducing exposure to medical staff during
procedures that have potentially large doses or complex radiation fields, such as IR, NM and
new developments. It also provides education and training material.
11.8
European Medical ALARA Network (EMAN)
http://www.eman-network.eu/ (Last accessed on the 12th of December 2012).
90
Education and training resources
This is a new European network created for stakeholders within the medical sector to have
the opportunity to discuss and exchange information on various topics relating to the
implementation of the ALARA principle in the medical field.
This network also supports the EC in its activities relating to the optimisation of radiation
protection of individuals submitted to medical exposure.
11.9
European Training and Education in Radiation
Protection (EUTERP) Foundation
http://www.euterp.eu/(last accessed on the 27th of January 2013).
The EUTERP Foundation is an independent legal entity set up to provide a centralised
European source of information on radiation protection education and training matters. It is a
focal point for the discussion and development of European training activities in Radiation
Protection in all the fields using ionising radiation, including the medical field.
11.10
Heads of the European Radiological protection
Competent Authorities (HERCA)
http://www.herca.org/ (Last accessed on the 12th of December 2012).
HERCA (Heads of the European Radiological protection Competent Authorities) is a
voluntary association in which the heads of radiation protection authorities work together in
order to identify common issues and propose practical solutions for these issues. HERCA is
working on topics generally covered by provisions in the Euratom Treaty. The programme of
work of HERCA is based on a common interest in significant regulatory issues.
The goal of HERCA is to contribute to a high level of radiological protection throughout
Europe.
11.11
American College of Radiology (ACR)
http://www.acr.org/ (Last accessed on the 12th of December 2012).
The ACR include radiologists, radiation oncologists, MPs, interventional radiologists, NM
physicians and allied health professionals. For over three quarters of a century, the ACR has
devoted its resources to making imaging safe, effective and accessible to those who need it.
The ACR serves patients and society by maximising the value of radiology, radiation
oncology, IR, NM and medical physics.
11.12
Australian Department of Health of Western Australia
http://www.imagingpathways.health.wa.gov.au/includes/index.html (Last accessed on the
12th of December 2012).
91
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
This website provides a clinical decision support tool and educational resources for
diagnostic imaging.
92
Abbreviations
ABBREVIATIONS
AAPM
American Association of Physicists in Medicine
ACR
American College of Radiology
ALARA
As Low As Reasonably Achievable
ASRT
American Society of Radiologic Technologists
BEV
Beams Eye View
BSS
Basic Safety Standards
CanMEDS
Canadian Medicine Specialists
CIRSE
Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe
CME
Continuous Medical Education
CPD
Continuous Professional Development
COM
Commission
CT
Computed Tomography
CTDI
Computed Tomography Dose Index
CTV
Clinical Target Volume
DAP
Dose Area Product
DLP
Dose Length Product
DRL
Diagnostic Reference Level
DRR
Digital Reconstructed Radiograph
DVH
Dose Volume Histogram
DSA
Digital Subtraction Angiography
EANM
European Association of Nuclear Medicine
EC
European Commission
ECTS
European Credit Transfer and accumulation System
ECVET
European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training
EI
Educational Institute
EU
European Union
EFRS
European Federation of Radiographer Societies
EFOMP
European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics
EHAE
European Higher Education Area
EMAN
European Medical ALARA Network
ENETRAP
European Network on Education and Training in Radiation Protection
EQF
European Qualifications Framework
ESD
Entrance Surface Dose
ESR
European Society of Radiology
ESTRO
European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
93
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the
European Union
ESVS
European Society for Vascular Surgery
Euratom
European Atomic Energy Community
GFR
Glomerular Filtration Rate
GP
General Practitioner
GTV
Gross Target Volume
HEI
Higher Education Institution
HENRE
Higher Education Network for Radiography in Europe
HERCA
Heads of the European Radiological Protection Competent Authorities
HTA
Health Technology Assessment
IAEA
International Atomic Energy Agency
ICRP
International Commission on Radiological Protection
IORT
IntraOperative Radiation Therapy
IR
Interventional Radiology
KAP
Kerma Area Product
KSC
Knowledge, Skills and Competence
LET
Linear Energy Transfer
LLL
Lifelong Learning
LNT
Linear No-Threshold
MED
Medical Exposures Directive
MEDRAPET
Medical Radiation Protection Education and Training
MP
Medical Physicist
MPE
Medical Physics Expert
MS
Member States
NM
Nuclear Medicine
NMT
Nuclear Medicine Technologist
OLINDA/EXM Organ Level INternal Dose Assessment/EXponentialModeling
OR
Operating Room
OAR
Organs at Risk
ORAMED
Optimization of RAdiation protection for MEDical staff
PET
Positron Emission Tomography
PET/CT
Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography
PM
Preventive Maintenance
PS
Professional Societies
PTV
Planning Target Volume
QA
Quality Assurance
QC
Quality Control
RCR
Royal College of Radiology
94
Abbreviations
RP116
Radiation Protection Report 116
RPA
Radiation Protection Authority
RPE
Radiation Protection Expert
RPOP
Radiation Protection of Patients
RSNA
Radiological Society of North America
RTT
Radiation TherapisTs
SPECT
Single Photon Emission Tomography
SPECT/CT
Single Photon emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography
SOP
Standard Operating Procedure
TIPS
Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt
UEMS
European Union of Medical Specialists
UNSCEAR
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
WHO
World Health Organisation
95
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ESTRO
(European Society for
Radiotherapy and Oncology)
CIRSE (Cardiovascular and
Interventional Radiological
Society of Europe)
EUTERP (European Training and
Education in Radiation
Protection Foundation)
ESVS
European Society for Vascular
Surgery
Project Leader
John Damilakis, ESR
Guidelines Leader
Stelios Christofides, EFOMP
Administrative and Secretariat Support
Monika Hierath, ESR
Angelika Benkovszky, ESR
Stephanie Hopf, ESR
Sonja Guttenbrunner, ESR
Contributors
John Damilakis, ESR
Peter Vock, ESR
Natasa Brasik, ESR
Stelios Christofides, EFOMP
Carmel J. Caruana, EFOMP
Jim Malone, EFOMP
Graciano Paulo, EFRS
Sija Geers-van Gemeren, EFRS
Dean Pekarovic, EFRS
Wolfgang Eschner, EANM
Andrea Bauer, EANM
Dag Rune Olsen, ESTRO
Mary Coffey, ESTRO
Efstathios Efstathopoulos, CIRSE
Dimitrios Tsetis, CIRSE
Robert Bauer, CIRSE
Gabriel Bartal, CIRSE
Christos Liapis, ESVS
Madan, Rehani, IAEA
Maria del Rosario Perez, WHO
Ruzica Maksimovic, WHO
Annemarie Schmitt-Hannig, BfS
Ritva Bly, HERCA
Keith Horner, UK
Jackie Brown, UK
Reviews
Steve Ebdon-Jackson, Department of
Health, UK
Stuart Conney, Department of Health, UK
Olivier Le Moine, ESGE
Annemarie Schmitt-Hannig, BfS, Germany
G. Hamilton,ESVS
S. Parvin, ESVS
C. Liappis, ESVS
Van Bladel Lodewijk, Federal Agency for
Nuclear Control, Belgium
Sven Richter, Swedish Radiation Safety
Authority, Sweden
Richard Paynter, EUTERP
Endorsements
ESR
(European Society of Radiology
EFOMP (European Federation of
Organisations for Medical
Physicists)
EFRS European Federation of
Radiographers Societies)
EANM (European Association of Nuclear
Medicine)
It should also be acknowledged that during the MEDRAPET workshop that was held in
Athens, Greece between the 21st and 23rd of April 2012, a lot of constructive feedback was
received from a wide range of participants, including regulators, representatives of
professional societies, equipment manufacturers’ associations and individuals.
97
Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of medical professionals in the European Union
ANNEX: ICRP 113 TABLES 3.1 AND 3.2
The ICRP 113 tables 3.1 and 3.2 are reproduced below with the kind permission of the ICRP.
Table 3.1. Recommended radiological protection training requirements for different categories of physicians and dentists.
Training area
Category
1DR
2NM
3CDIMDI
6MDA
7DT
8MD
Atomic structure, x-ray production, and interaction of radiation
m
h
l
l
l
l
l
–
Nuclear structure and radioactivity
m
h
l
–
m
–
–
–
Radiological quantities and units
m
h
m
m
m
l
l
l
Physical characteristics of x-ray machines
m
l
m
m
l
l
m
–
Fundamentals of radiation detection
m
h
l
l
m
–
l
–
Principle and process of justification
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
m
Fundamentals of radiobiology, biological effects of radiation
h
h
m
m
m
l
l
l
Risks of cancer and hereditary disease
h
h
m
m
m
l
m
m
Risk of deterministic effects
h
h
h
m
l
l
m
l
General principles of radiation protection including optimisation
h
h
h
m
m
m
m
l
Operational radiation protection
h
h
h
m
h
m
m
l
Particular patient radiation protection aspects
h
h
h
h
h
m
h
l
Particular staff radiation protection aspects
h
h
h
h
h
m
h
l
Typical doses from diagnostic procedures
h
h
m
m
m
m
m
m
Risks from foetal exposure
h
h
l
m
m
l
l
l
Quality control and quality assurance
m
h
m
l
l
–
l
–
National regulations and international standards
m
m
m
m
m
l
m
l
30–50
30–50
20–30
15–20
15–20
8–12
10–15
5–10
Suggested number of training hours
4MDX 5MDN
RP, radiological protection; DR, diagnostic radiology specialists; NM, nuclear medicine specialists; CDI, interventional cardiologists; MDI, interventionalists from other
specialties; MDX, other medical specialists using x-ray systems; MDN, other medical specialists using nuclear medicine; MDA, other medical doctors assisting with
fluoroscopy procedures such as an aesthetists and occupational health physicians; DT, dentists; MD, medical doctors referring for medical exposures and medical
students; l, low level of knowledge indicating a general awareness and understanding of principles; m, medium level of knowledge indicating a basic understanding of the
topic, sufficient to influence practices undertaken; h, high level of detailed knowledge and understanding, sufficient to be able to educate others.
98
ANNEX: ICRP 113 tables 3.1 and 3.2
Table 3.2.
Recommended radiological protection training requirements for categories of health care professionals other than physicians
or dentists.
Training area
Atomic structure, x-ray production, and interaction of radiation
Nuclear structure and radioactivity
9MP
h
h
Category
10RDNM 11ME 12HCP 13NU 14DCP 15CH 16RL 17REG
m
m
l
l
m
l
m
l
m
m
–
–
–
–
m
l
Radiological quantities and units
h
m
m
l
l
l
m
m
m
Physical characteristics of x-ray machines
h
h
h
m
–
l
m
l
l
Fundamentals of radiation detection
h
h
h
l
l
l
l
m
l
Principle and process of justification
h
h
–
l
l
l
h
–
m
Fundamentals of radiobiology, biological effects of radiation
h
m
l
m
l
l
m
m
L
Risks of cancer and hereditary disease
h
h
l
m
l
m
m
m
m
Risks of deterministic effects
h
h
–
l
l
l
m
l
m
General principles of radiation protection including optimisation
h
h
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Operational radiation protection
h
h
m
m
m
m
m
h
m
Particular patient radiation protection aspects
h
h
m
h
m
m
h
–
m
Particular staff radiation protection aspects
h
h
m
h
m
m
h
h
m
Typical doses from diagnostic procedures
h
h
l
l
–
l
m
–
l
Risks from foetal exposure
h
h
l
m
l
l
m
m
l
Quality control and quality assurance
h
h
h
l
–
m
m
l
m
National regulations and international standards
h
m
h
m
l
l
m
m
h
Suggested number of training hours
150–200 100–140 30–40 15–20
8–12
10–15 10–30 20–40 15–20
RP, radiological protection; MP, medical physicists specialising in radiation protection, nuclear medicine, and diagnostic radiology; RDNM, radiographers, nuclear
medicine technologists, and x-ray technologists; HCP, health care professionals directly involved in x-ray procedures; NU, nurses assisting in x-ray or nuclear medicine
procedures; DCP, dental care professionals including hygienists, dental nurses, and dental care assistants; ME, maintenance engineers and applications specialists;
CH, chiropractors and other healthcare professionals referring for, justifying, and delivering radiography procedures (amount of training depends on range of tasks
performed); RL, radiopharmacists and radionuclide laboratory staff; REG, regulators; l, low level of knowledge indicating a general awareness and understanding of
principles; m, medium level of knowledge indicating a basic understanding of the topic, sufficient to influence practices undertaken; h, high level of detailed knowledge
and understanding, sufficient to be able to educate others.
99